dwai

Admin
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    8,286

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    70

Everything posted by dwai

  1. I think you missed the point. I'm saying the act of cognition (either volitional or not) is dependent on various factors. And a good theory around this is the concept of Bio-cultures. I sense a tinge of aggression here, when none is needed or warranted...friend
  2. Yes syntax is befuddling to say the least. I use pure awareness and objectless consciousness to mean the same thing...that unchanging background. It's evident even in regular waking, walking, talking state. That background is there like a cooling, soothing background. I used to have a different concept/idea about all this until I met my present Master. He dispelled all notions of "killing the ego" etc. His way is to accept the fact that we are mortals with a physical body, an identity that has been developed due to various reasons (voluntary and involuntary). His way is to understand that there is a "higher Self" within us...he calls it our spiritual mind. With his way the "self" is just an expression of that background consciousness. The spiritual mind connects us to the Dao (is non-different from Dao). All work happens through that...but that is truly a very intimate, yet impersonal consciousness. That's why some call it the True Self.
  3. I think different people behave and react differently based on a vast variety of things, including their cultural backgrounds etc. My friend has done some excellent research on this topic. http://www.biocultural.org/about_bri.html Also lot of articles he has written about this topic here -- http://www.medhajournal.com/index.php/en/medha-gold/indic-classics-and-bio-cultures He tabulates the concept of biocultures here -- http://www.biocultural.org/humanities.html (tried pasting the table chart 2 from above webpage but to no avail)
  4. What we do is live the narrative of the left brain interpreter module. What most people consider experience is really after the fact. It could be a fraction of a second after the actual experience or longer than that. Direct experience moves us beyond thinking mind. Say you are walking by the ocean and suddenly there's a beautiful sunset or sunrise. The beauty of it can be so mesmerizing that you stop thinking and just feel - awe, joy, sorrow etc. These emotions are more direct than descriptions we give after the fact. Meditation is like that. When you are in the gap between thoughts there is no description, no labels, well because there are no thoughts. Then a thought is triggered and the mind starts flowing again. In that gap there is only awareness, no object. We describe it (like I'm doing it now) after the fact...
  5. Does the fact the Earth existed for 4.5 billion years have any bearing on you, the individual subject, after you cease to exist? It doesn't for me (if I cease to exist)
  6. Yes indeed. Subject only experiences objects via sensory apparatuses. But does subject exist if objects don't? Forms and labels are after experiencing.
  7. Let me rephrase it, without you - the subject, does anything matter? If the subject ceases to exist, the object too ceases to exist right?
  8. Hmm...very complex pachinko machines just built themselves?
  9. Reminds me of the zen koan - "If a tree fell in a forest, with no one to witness it - Did that tree really fall?" What meaning does anything have, without a consciousness experiencing?
  10. That is a very interesting "problem" to solve. Indeed, what IS consciousness? What does it mean to be conscious? To be aware? One could say that "consciousness is the awareness of objects". That said, would it be true that if there were no objects, there would be no consciousness? In meditation we find that there can indeed be objectless consciousness...in the gap between thoughts. What does it tell us about the process of "reasoning" then? Reasoning, thinking etc are also actions of an actor then right?
  11. I love this explanation
  12. Indeed..what is an action? Doesn't action imply an actor?
  13. Haha...that's my goal. To become a child again ;-)
  14. What is it that predicates the need to store 'data', etc?
  15. I wonder if any and all of these activities are predicated on something more basic/elementary (for lack of a better word)? I know what I'm thinking of, of course, but I'm using this type of questioning to illustrate a technique that can be employed to see that which you ascribe to spiritual and philosophical paradigms.
  16. Might be interesting to develop this thought further. Why do we not understand what it is to sense or think? Sensing and thinking are actions right? What does that imply then?
  17. What gives us the ability to store the imprecise analogy in the neocortex? And what is it that forms this imprecise analogy?
  18. Haha MH, some of us ARE flawed...but that just results in "faulty" functioning, not lack of functioning, imho (or there'd be no hope for me ... )
  19. Is that what gives the ability?
  20. Why can't reasoning be defined? I propose that the following is a good place to start - perception of objects by the subject (here perception means anything that is encountered by the sensory apparatuses) categorization of the objects based on perception (in classical Indian philosophy it is called Nama-Rupa or Label and Form) Ascribe values to the categorized objects (this is good, that is bad,) and forming a map of interrelated values (and objects). That's why over time, ability to reason improves...because we experience more objects and have more empirical data on basis of which the map and rules can be first formulated and then refined. Act (or refrain from acting) according the values ascribed to the categorized objects. This is good for me, so I do x, that is bad so I do z That is the essence of reasoning and logic. It is a mechanism via which we survive and interact in this world. What is so hard to define in this? Again, you assume that I am arguing against reasoning. I am not arguing against Reasoning...however the fact that you perceive this as a threat indicates to me that you are being defensive because there might be something to it there.
  21. Where in my first question posed to you did I state that reason is not being used? I merely asked you - What gives you the ability to reason? Since you love logic so much, may I suggest the following course of possible actions? Upon pondering the source of reason, it becomes evident that reasoning (the process) needs to be properly defined. What is reasoning? What does the mechanism of reasoning comprise of? What does it entail? You laugh and say, haha..reasoning is self-contained, self-actuated and there is nothing that reasoning is predicated upon. If so, what then does it say about your locus standi? You say, "hmm...I never thought about it that way...let me think it over and get back to you" you say "I didn't understand your question, can you ask it again, in other words...try and make it more explicable to me?" I'm sure there are other options too, but these are the four main options I see (logically speaking)...
  22. You assumed what I meant, even though I didn't say so. That is the problem with Reasoning
  23. It is evident that you have thought a lot about "Reasoning". Have you thought about what gives us the ability to reason? The ability to see, taste, hear, smell, feel? That's where the essence of awakening and enlightenment lies imho.

  24. Awakening versus enlightenment

    dwai replied to Bindi's topic in General Discussion

    I don't think the Vedas talk about Kundalini. Kundalini is part of the Samkhya/Yoga system. The entire system of Indian phenomenology/elemental theory is samkhya. Don't go conflating these together The paradox of existence... How can you deny your physical existence? Being "awakened" doesn't prevent you from feeling pain, anger, sorrow etc. You still do...you just don't ascribe the "value" to them as you used to before. You still eat, shit, breath, fart, sleep...
  25. This morning I posted a one liner on my FB wall stating "The root of all suffering is fear". To which someone responded - "No, the root of all suffering is Ego". So after a few rounds of back and forth, we decided to define that which we are calling Ego. I said -- "Ego is just the identification of our selves with our body and mind". So back came the question. How does one identify with the mind. What is the mind? To which my response was - "The mind is a field of thoughts in our consciousness. It is the sensory apparatus that lets us interact with the material universe via a subject-object paradigm. It helps us categorize and label things...and ourselves thereof" Then came the rejoinder - "then How/Why is Ego not the root cause of all suffering?" To which my response was - Ego cannot be eradicated as long as there is a physical body and a mind. What can happen is that Ego takes a back seat unless needed for the organism to interact with it's surroundings. As part of categorizing and labeling, organizing objects that the subject encounters, there are value judgements made. This is good, that is bad...and we attach to the good and reject the bad. But always have the "FEAR" of losing the "Good" or of experiencing the "Bad". So we see, Fear is the emotion that is the root of all suffering. We suffer because we fear losing this or not attaining that (whatever this or that may be). We feel anger, we feel pain, we feel other emotions triggered by this one primal emotion. Even when we love we fear that we will lose our loved ones...or that the love we give is not going to be reciprocated...we fear of our feelings getting hurt. We fear pain that might be caused by some action or non-action. Our fear leads us to act unnaturally...and one action leads to another action and so on and so forth. Each action in turn is a decision point of what is good for me and what is bad for me... Feel free to discuss...but PLEASE don't post long quotes of other people's thoughts. Respond by thinking and stating how and what YOU understand of this topic...