Apech

Chapter 5 of this book explains how Sanskrit words are not directly translatable - its written from a Hindu perspective (arguably) but is very illuminating: https://www.amazon.com/Being-Different-Challenge-Western-Universalism-ebook/dp/B005UQ3YT8/ref=sr_1_1?crid=143NYD4KXPZP8&dchild=1&keywords=being+different+rajiv+malhotra&qid=1598617206&sprefix=being+different+%2Caps%2C278&sr=8-1

Many Sanskrit and Tibetan terms should be left in their original because adequate translations have to yet been found.

I'm looking for something for decluttering heads.

Maybe we could say that we encompass the conscious and the unconscious, it just being that certain activities are in the circle of our direct attention and others are not. Perhaps 'unconscious' is a poor term for it - maybe superconscious - as in that part of us which is beyond the circle of our direct attention? Ideas may inhabit this bigger space but communicate through dreams and so on.

This is very important in my opinion. So thank you for this comment. It is part of the general denigration of the mind - and its creations, ideas, concepts and so on which leads to our misunderstanding of the necessity of thought.

My request for no gifs and vids seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

Materialism developed as a philosophy in the second half of the nineteenth century, as the influence of religion waned. And right from the start, materialists realised the denial of free will was inherent in their philosophy. As one of the most fervent early materialists, T.H. Huxley, stated in 1874, “Volitions do not enter into the chain of causation…The feeling that we call volition is not the cause of a voluntary act, but the symbol of that state of the brain which is the immediate cause." Huxley anticipated the ideas of some modern materialists, such as psychologist Daniel Wegner, who claim that free will is literally a “trick of the mind.” According to Wegner, “The experience of willing an act arises from interpreting one’s thought as the cause of the act.” In other words, our sense of making choices or decisions is just an awareness of what the brain has already decided for us. When we become aware of the brain’s actions, we think about them and falsely conclude that our intentions have caused them. You could compare it to an imbecilic king who believes he is making all his own decisions but is constantly being manipulated by his advisors and officials, who whisper in his ear and plant ideas in his head. Many materialists believe that evidence for a lack of free will was found when, in the 1980s, the scientist Benjamin Libet conducted experiments that seemed to show that the brain “registers” the decision to make movements before a person consciously decides to move. In Libet’s experiments, a participant would be asked to perform a simple task such as pressing a button or flexing their wrist. Sitting in front of a timer, they were asked to note the moment at which they were consciously aware of the decision to move, while EEG electrodes attached to their head monitored their brain activity. Libet showed consistently that there was unconscious brain activity associated with the action – a change in EEG signals that Libet called “readiness potential” — for an average of half a second before the participants were aware of the decision to move. This experiment appears to offer evidence of Daniel Wegner’s view that decisions are first made by the brain, and there is a delay before we become conscious of them — at which point we attribute our own conscious intention to the act. However, if we look more closely, Libet’s experiment is full of problematic issues. For example, it relies on the participants’ own recording of when they feel the intention to move. One issue here is that there may be a delay between the impulse to act and their recording of it — after all, this means shifting their attention from their own intention to the clock. In addition, it is debatable whether people are able to accurately record the moment of their decision to move. Our subjective awareness of decisions is very unreliable. If you try the experiment yourself, you’ll become aware that it’s difficult to pinpoint the moment at which you make the decision. You can do it right now, by holding out your own arm and deciding at some point to flex your wrist. A further, more subtle (and more arguable) issue is that Libet's experiment seems to assume that the act of willing consists of clearcut decisions, made by a conscious, rational mind. But decisions are often made in a more fuzzy, ambiguous way. They can be made on a partly intuitive, impulsive level, without clearcut conscious awareness. But this doesn't necessarily mean that you haven't made the decision. As the psychiatrist and philosopher Iain McGilchrist, author of the Master and His Emissary, points out while making this argument that Libet's apparent findings are only problematic "if one imagines that, for me to decide something, I have to have willed it with the conscious part of my mind. Perhaps my unconscious is every bit as much 'me.'" Why shouldn't your will be associated with deeper, less conscious areas of your mind (which are still you)? You might sense this if, while trying Libet’s experiment, you find your wrist seeming to move of its own accord. You feel that you have somehow made the decision, even if not wholly consciously. An even more serious issue with Libet’s experiment is that it is by no means clear that the electrical activity of the “readiness potential” is related to the decision to move, and the actual movement. Some researchers have suggested that the readiness potential could just relate to the act of paying attention to the wrist or a button, rather than the decision to move. Others have suggested that it only reflects the expectation of some kind of movement, rather than being related to a specific moment. In a modified version of Libet’s experiment (in which participants were asked to press one of two buttons in response to images on a computer screen), participants showed readiness potential even before the images came up on the screen, suggesting that it was not related to deciding which button to press. Others have suggested that the area of the brain where the readiness potential occurs — the supplementary motor area — is usually associated with imagining movements rather than actually performing them. The experience of willing is usually associated with other areas of the brain (the parietal areas). And finally, in another modified version of Libet’s experiment, participants showed readiness potential even when they made a decision not to move, which again casts doubt on the assumption that the readiness potential is actually registering the brain’s “decision” to move. Because of issues such as these — and others that I don’t have space to mention — it’s mystifying that such a flawed experiment has become so influential, and has been used frequently as evidence against the idea of free will. The reason why the experiment has been so enthusiastically embraced is surely because the apparent findings fit so well with the principles of materialism. It seems to prove what materialism implies: that human beings are automatons. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201709/benjamin-libet-and-the-denial-free-will

Excellent. Thanks.

Blushes (I'm a complete shit in meat-ville ).

Interesting article in the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/nov/10/tibet-secret-tantric-murals-lukhang-temple

Can we possibly have a gif, vid and pic embargo on this thread. Please express yourselves in words. It's much better in the long run.

I once, a long time ago, went to a meeting of people interested in psychic stuff and there was a woman healer there. She talked about how everybody had mental and emotional traumas which needed healing. So being me, I asked her what her's were - and she said her one problem was how to let her light shine fully into the world. Her 'problem' was her own awesomeness. I laughed - and she didn't speak to me again the whole evening. I mention this to demonstrate my high level of social skills in the 'meat world'. I'm not sure we really get to know each other, certainly not on here, and there's a good deal of projection goes on - which I have at times suffered from and also I assume been guilty of. I would say that there's a lot more transmitted between us than just the letters on the page. Quite a lot between the lines. I've even been through times when I've felt the need to cleanse myself of the confused energies which sometimes radiate from this place. I have never, ever felt this was a place where you could really open up - too many trolls and too much random reactivity - but on the other hand it does feel like a community if you accept it for what it is.

Ouch.

Set up a crystal meth lab?

Yes I agree. Although I tend to think Buddhist and technically am a Buddhist - as I was trying to say before I think it is the whole Indic tradition that provides our vocabulary for these subjects. I did not intend this thread to be Buddhist in any way - but just to explore the necessity of thought - why we think, what it is for, what path it can take us on. I suspect the reason for the facility of the Sanskrit is because we converse in language which is PIE based - and so even if it is very different has some of the same conceptual undertones. And Jnana Yoga brings me nicely on to the next point - which is the role of thought in 'knowing' - as everyone knows I am sure the words are etymologically linked. What does it mean to 'know' something??????

Do you see some contradiction?

I would say, if I was asked, that it is not the thoughts that are the problem but the attachment to them and even more the attachment of self to them. When the Buddha talks of freedom he is speaking to the end of clinging, the end of wanting, or any attachment to outcomes. So the problem is that we are all wooled up, like a tangled thread and we can't see the wool for trees. Understanding how we think, how thoughts work, how the mind appears to function, getting to the root of it, seeing it how it really is, this is our path.

But ... even structured things are empty ... let's not get our shunyas in a twist

Just stop right there.

structures are made to be broken? but what about indestructible truth?

You see, calling thoughts a symptom suggests an illness.

How do you integrate without some kind of structure?

Yes it would because it would change the perceived purpose of thought from some way of working on a situation in order to structure it in some way to a process of attaining a shared understanding of something. It also begs the question of who is communicating with who - especially if you are focussing on internal processes where presumably you are communicating with yourself.

@neti neti seriously wtf?

Yes, you could interpret necessity as ' the unceasing nature' (of thought) or the need of thought for some purpose. I think we are all gulled a little by early meditation instructions to 'empty the mind' and 'let thoughts come and go' without paying any heed to them. As if thoughts are necessarily dross of some kind. So we get the idea of the pristine mind (often called sky-like) as being different to the messy filled up mind with its stream of incessant thoughts. I get @manitou 's idea of a process of simplifying (if I have understood this properly) that reducing mental over-work leads to a being here-now and a greater sense of peace and fulfilment because you are getting closer to being in the natural state. I hope I got this right 'cos I didn't re-read your post and am just thinking from memory. I also like @Bindi's ideas about the mundane yang and the yin mind - not sure I absolutely buy the terminology but what she is saying feels like actual work, if you see what I mean, as distinct to theory. I think the first question which arises for me is this picture of thoughts as dross. As if all of our thoughts, feelings, emotions are to be seen as deluded impurities to be removed. This is a very common idea in mystical literature. But it is notable that its many proponents have sets of very well developed conceptual terms and ideas to back up their claim. They say for instance reality is non-conceptual and describe this in a quite long winded ways using an endless stream of portmanteau words. I find Dzogchen (great and esteemed system though it is) particularly prone to this. While I accept that there are thoughts which are dross, idle chit chat, emotionally obsessive repetition and so on - I don't think this is the nature of thought, more the product of an unexamined mind. Thoughts are a constructive process - which begs the question what are we supposed to construct with them? @steve and @dwai - is there fundamentally a Self which observes - or is it better understood as a field of self-aware mind (the self part just being the reflexive verb and not a separate self) - an age old question kicked off by the Samkhya duality of Purusha/prakriti and attempts to resolve the paradox of two absolutes co-existing. I am quite happy with thinking that in some senses both may be true - but whichever you take to be true will inevitably have an impact on how you approach your cultivation practices.