GENIUS FORUMS

An oversight in the consciousness of the posters on this board is the acknowledgement that thinking is not always present. And that these moments when thinking is not present is a different consciousness post-enlightenment then it was pre-enlightenment.

I believe that this oversight to put into words our consciousness of silence is to ignore its most vital 'thing.' I am aware that to do so is to enter the poetic realm - did I just raise terror in Mr. Logic's heart?

"What is not seen of me breathes me into consciousness without cost or struggle; my breath within my breath, My Love, My Reason, My Everything."

This depends on how you'd order all these terms. What is thought after all? It might end up in a sentence in your writing but how does it look like before that? Where does it start? Another way of looking at it is to acknowledge that mental processing is always going on, like a heart beat, breathing, regulation of those, blood flow, sense creation, imaging and so on.

Now instead of putting thought and logic as some pinnacle, some capstone on this pyramid of mind, lets define consciousness as this capstone. The limestones are senses, memories and a whole body of causes. The cornerstones can be proper thoughts or "wisdom teeth". Seamless they create this structure which as a whole, or at its peak, we call awareness. Awareness is the fruit of mind, mind is not the fruit of awareness.

Now to make this view compatible with your post, I could say that, yes, thinking is not always present because thoughts upon closer examination aren't objects to consider. The moment they can be studied they have already turned into fruits of that thinking labor: a phrasing or symbol. Examining the contents of the mind will turn up many proto-thoughts, feelings, spacings and moods which cannot even brought as object to our awareness because their half-formlessness, or how they are connected to so many other things; how they remain barely distinguishable.

We might not always be concrete but our mind will remain busy as its activity defines its existence as mind. Therefore I posit that there's no "different consciousness" just like there is no actual silence in ones existence, just relativity.

Diebert: This depends on how you'd order all these terms.

Hello Mr. Logic. :-)

What is thought after all?

I don't know what thought is, I only know that it's existence effects/affects my consciousness.

It might end up in a sentence in your writing but how does it look like before that? Where does it start?

Can't go there. For the sake of logic, one could say that thought exists as an unseen possibility in the hidden void.

Another way of looking at it is to acknowledge that mental processing is always going on, like a heart beat, breathing, regulation of those, blood flow, sense creation, imaging and so on.

Defining the heartbeat, breathing, sense creation, etc. as a mental process is logic's construction job, no problem. However, speaking or writing of the direct experience of "heartbeating" or "breathing" or "sensing" is not a construction job. Speaking poetically, writing from direct body experience is to write not from the reasoning mind but from the spiritual heart.

Now instead of putting thought and logic as some pinnacle, some capstone on this pyramid of mind, lets put consciousness as this capstone. The stones are senses, memories and a whole body of causes. The cornerstones can be proper thoughts. Seamless they create this structure which as a whole, or at its peak we call awareness. Awareness is the fruit of mind, mind is not the fruit of awareness.

I see your pyramid of logical construction of awareness/mind in my mind, but of course, I cannot hold it in my mind. What I am writing about in this thread is that "in between construction jobs" consciousness. What it is it like?

Now to make this view compatible with your post, I could say that, yes, thinking is not always present

Can you be in the presence of the absence of thinking and express it in thoughts?

because thoughts upon closer examination aren't objects to consider.

Exactly.

The moment they can be studied they have already turned into fruits of that thinking labor: a phrasing or symbol. Examining the contents of the mind will turn up many proto-thoughts, feelings, spacing, moods which cannot even brought as object to our awareness because their half-formlessness, or how they are connected to so many other things; how they remain barely distinguishable.

We might not always be concrete but our mind will remain busy as its activity defines its existence as mind.

Therefore I posit that there's no "different consciousness" just like there is no actual silence in ones existence, just relativity.

Consciousness is 'one thing', however, one is conscious of different things. Therefore, I agree that there is no actual silence in one's existence in the sense of being aware of nothing.

movingalways wrote:Defining the heartbeat, breathing, sense creation, etc. as a mental process is logic's construction job, no problem. However, speaking or writing of the direct experience of "heartbeating" or "breathing" or "sensing" is not a construction job. Speaking poetically, writing from direct body experience is to write not from the reasoning mind but from the spiritual heart.

When I'd speak of "construction", I'd still include of all experiencing, "direct", "spiritual" or from the heart which is the heart of matter, knowing essentials which is done by ones "whole being". But why having two types of construction sites? One could talk about qualitative differences or levels of integration. But the distinction itself appears as divisive act, an attempt to create special palaces for exemptions to hide out of sight and touch.

I see your pyramid of logical construction of awareness/mind in my mind, but of course, I cannot hold it in my mind. What I am writing about in this thread is that "in between construction jobs" consciousness. What it is it like?

It seems like an illusion to think there are "in betweens" since to have those you need to first introduce those separate jobs. But my point is that there really aren't. That's even observable, assuming sufficient attention. Connectivity can be noticed upon inquiry.

Now to make this view compatible with your post, I could say that, yes, thinking is not always present

Can you be in the presence of the absence of thinking and express it in thoughts?

It would only be a logical conclusion in this case since thoughts can be shown not to be just objects to hold in focus.

Well, you just said that you don't know what thought is. But here you imply that you know nevertheless what thinking is, that we're not always doing "it", the possibility to be in between jobs, etc. That would mean you must have an idea what to call thought. But since they aren't really objects to considers, like tips of icebergs, one cannot really say when "we" are without them.

The mind's heart beat will not wait for us.

What you are trying to get at Pam is root mind.
the mind out of which conceptualising mind rises.

any reified entity for conceptualising mind such as moon or sun is described as a role and a practice.
a social theory organises beings into roles and practices.
in order to for the sake of

root mind is free of such encumbrance.
recognises groundlessness.

what's on the menu.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Root mind, out of which conceptualizing mind rises.

Some say Egyptian pyramids were constructed "from the top down". That first the capstone was positioned to guide and define the whole shape.

What we tend to call "root", awareness or consciousness, is already pinnacle or capstone. It can be seen as beginning of a construct or the ending, the fruit of all labor.

You know, wisdom and Logos as alpha & omega. At some point it's good to stop this "rising" of one out of the other. There are just too many relations.

Oh, Poetry take these head-struck, head-stuck men and shake them loose!

And that isn't discriminating?
Is honesty a possibility for you?

movingalways wrote:Oh, Poetry take these head-struck, head-stuck men and shake them loose!

But it's not the head being addressed here at this forum. What's being addressed is simply the only thing that can be addressed in such place.

The rest one has to sort out for themselves. Your poetry is selfish: just because you can't follow doesn't mean others are stuck.

Pam wrote: Speaking poetically, writing from direct body experience is to write not from the reasoning mind but from the spiritual heart.

That's a bit of nonsense you still have to overcome. You keep "splitting" something that has never been separated but in your own mind. The feelings must be confusing? It's a form of dishonesty to offer obscure but reasoned out positions and when opposition comes, to translate it suddenly to "speaking poetically" and "from the heart", beyond any reasonable position.

Logic is a lovely thing but I don't think it has anything to do with enlightenment. It should be taught at school where it might make a difference to our society.

Thinking is interesting. I saw a description of it many years ago as defined by a Japanese zen writer [can't remember his name]. He defined the start of thought as a nen and that thought is perfect then it rises and is evaluated by our thinking and discriminating processes. The nen then is reviewed and altered and then reviewed and altered again and the end result is:

Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action. - Hamlet

On the mattering of sagacity Diebert,
The proposition called up as response is:
Yes and No
the middle way between these mighty pillars as possibility.

Yes it exists and No to inherent existence.

in that way imagination 'gets' imagination.
Bliss in the light of emptiness
the ultimate caveat
The fine print in the contract.

signed up?

ardy wrote:Logic is a lovely thing but I don't think it has anything to do with enlightenment. It should be taught at school where it might make a difference to our society.

Thinking is interesting. I saw a description of it many years ago as defined by a Japanese zen writer [can't remember his name]. He defined the start of thought as a nen and that thought is perfect then it rises and is evaluated by our thinking and discriminating processes. The nen then is reviewed and altered and then reviewed and altered again and the end result is: [Hamlet]

And Hamlet is indeed a product of highly thoughtful and discriminating prose combined with a great insight in human nature. The Japanese writer is just saying the obvious, like every artist would say: the image as ideal is expressed in manners left much to desire. Perfection however lies in understanding that the image, the nen, was not perfect, it's only attributed that quality because a desire is in place to obscure the actual perfection of the infinite.

Really, Ardy, logic a "lovely thing"? It's the only thing standing between being some complete and dangerous idiot, less than animal, and a human being. In that sense it has everything to do with enlightenment because the only way to block out enlightenment is to become that complete and dangerous idiot, lost at sea, drifting in ignorant bliss, wrecking the truth and the earth. There's indeed a moment logic as tool becomes superfluous simply because we have become logical beings with intuitions for truth: wisdom has taken hold as our true nature.

Does the Tao have to think ?
Does the Void need to think ?
Is the Universe thinking as it balances all these planets and stars ?

Only something that is Unenlightened needs to think.

The Non-Dual is not a thinker.

Think about it...........

What is the base of designation for logic please when your poetry and lust for it sunders a mite D.

Do you do other than hand out brickbats and bouquets on this forum?

Bliss means without suffering.
some addled poet wrote bliss is ignorance and suddenly its an absolute.
Imagine that.

and another thingie,
What goes unrealised by the misogynist is that at some point the dill thought a woman could be his saviour.

Diebert: But it's not the head being addressed here at this forum. What's being addressed is simply the only thing that can be addressed in such place.

The rest one has to sort out for themselves. Your poetry is selfish: just because you can't follow doesn't mean others are stuck.

It is interesting that you think that one must be helped to discover logic, but not the spirit movement of love of Self. In my own experience, logic of the earth (removal of selfishness) comes before love for existence itself (experience of unselfishness). Is not the latter just as much a genius expression of enlightenment as the former, perhaps even more? And it is not that I am dividing logic from love, that is just silly, but rather, expressing their distinctions. Surely you don't believe the use of logic and consciousness of love are exactly the same thing.

Dennis: What goes unrealised by the misogynist is that at some point the dill thought a woman could be his saviour.

Woman who loves existence unconditionally, thinking of Her things when thinking of her things is necessary. Post-ego feeling consciousness.

There's only one distinction.
mind discriminates.

meaningmaker.

movingalways wrote:It is interesting that you think that one must be helped to discover logic, but not the spirit movement of love of Self. In my own experience, logic of the earth (removal of selfishness) comes before love for existence itself (experience of unselfishness). Is not the latter just as much a genius expression of enlightenment as the former, perhaps even more? And it is not that I am dividing logic from love, that is just silly, but rather, expressing their distinctions. Surely you don't believe the use of logic and consciousness of love are exactly the same thing.

When I wrote "being addressed", I was not thinking in terms of helping to discover. Personally I believe the discovery has to be in place already before one can even understand someone talking about it. And yes that would turn most conversation into hopeless affairs. At some stage perhaps some re-affirming or reminding could happen. But the whole notion of "this comes before that" is too formulaic. It appears growth and development happens on all accounts and eventual thresholds or milestones, no matter how arbitrarily, are crossed as a whole with no distinctions in terms of what came first, the chick or the egg. Unless it's the rooster.

Of course everything is in place before one discovers it, we are discoverers of our own infinite nature. But is not the intent or will of the sage naturally directed toward guiding others to discover, for themselves, the way to dismantle the ego (by logic)?

It wasn't my intention to suggest that discovery of one's things is akin to dominoes falling, but for the sake of the mind, the distinction maker, some kind of "map" is necessary. Like the Buddha's Dependent Origination or 31 planes of existence, neither of which are to be taken literally or understood to be sequential in nature. We need go no further than this board to realize that enlightenment is not a dominoes-falling experience. I can say with certainty that my own "coming to light" has been and continues to be an unfolding of Self discovery that in no way can be "tracked" as if B follows A, C follows B, etc.

Worldly Matters is gone, perhaps a forum for expressions of love for existence could be considered as a possible replacement?

I am loving this thread . . . .

Diebert writes: Really, Ardy, logic a "lovely thing"? It's the only thing standing between being some complete and dangerous idiot, less than animal, and a human being.

Indeed the deeply rooted hangover of western-mind from the Greek model of rational man - a great dualism between our animal-belonging (mammal) and our so-called rational selves, between which an unbridgeable chasm surely exists . . . at least, so it is thought . . . . Working in the word-factory inspires me to hope that someday I'll be able to articulate for you here in pathological detail the amount of times and forms of same where I have seen perfectly correct linguistic logic wrap itself so tightly and so far away from the air reality, that the light from reality . . . (oh well, you get it . . . :)

movingalways suggests: Worldly Matters is gone, perhaps a forum for expressions of love for existence could be considered as a possible replacement?

well, I'm inclined to remark again that all matters are worldly matters; all material is of the spiritual and the spiritual of the material. This'd be, in my estimation, the most pernicious dualism of all . . . .

Pye wrote:Indeed the deeply rooted hangover of western-mind from the Greek model of rational man - a great dualism between our animal-belonging (mammal) and our so-called rational selves, between which an unbridgeable chasm surely exists . . . at least, so it is thought . . . . Working in the word-factory inspires me to hope that someday I'll be able to articulate for you here in pathological detail the amount of times and forms of same where I have seen perfectly correct linguistic logic wrap itself so tightly and so far away from the air reality, that the light from reality . . . (oh well, you get it . . . :)

I did write less than animal. Animals generally do not obstruct their own reason since it would get them killed. Not much wiggle room to dwell there.

Your ideas about a "Greek" model of rational man is flawed. It's the model making that is part and "parcel" of rationalizing behavior. And with that I mean all matrices of learning.

Diebert writes: Your ideas about a "Greek" model of rational man is flawed.

I'm thinking that the model itself is flawed.

I'll grant you this, that man is perhaps in greater terror of his animal self and thus in greater need of cooling it off in the still-waters of logic. The "civilization" of himself has depended upon it. But this self-same civilization organizes its rules around the animal self anyway - for more orderly access to mating drives and more 'splendid' forms of power/accomplishment for the appetites of libido. For one, I am extremely grateful to the whole structure of sporting competition/games where man can also drain-off the endless and redundant appetite of his animal libido. To posit these things as transcendent of flesh is erroneous.

Animals generally do not obstruct their own reason since it would get them killed.

and many a man has used that self-same un-obstructed reason to build the towers and citadels of thought that can get himself, and a whole lot of others killed with him.

. . . and yet, man will look-to the object of his fleshly reality and terrorizing desires - woman - and blame her for being 'out of control.' For man's 'logic' then, the object itself must be irrational, unreasonable if it exerts this sort of animal influence upon him - a logic even less-than lovely or sound.

Pye wrote:. . . and yet, man will look-to the object of his fleshly reality and terrorizing desires - woman - and blame her for being 'out of control.' For man's 'logic' then, the object itself must be irrational, unreasonable if it exerts this sort of animal influence upon him - a logic even less-than lovely or sound.

But Pye, men desire so many things, low and high, earthy and heavenly. Women are not what men desire, although in cases women are still trying to embody themselves as one particular exclusive object of desire. It's opportunist for sure. All the other problems with women have to do with their general lack of vision and in fact a web of control she has been weaving herself into. Luckily men have showed them the way by education and invention so that they can free themselves of their particular preoccupation. But who is going the free up the men?