CarsonZi

The Dao Bums
  • Content count

    453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CarsonZi

  1. Kundalini

    In my opinion if you have to ask "Am I kundalini awakened" or "Is this kundalini" you aren't/it isn't. Kundalini is unmistakable and when it happens you know it is something more then just prana/chi circulating....it is unmistakable and when it happens you know it. Just my experience though......and kundalini is just a word Love, Carson
  2. Internet Telepathy

    Obviously no telepathy going on here! Sorry....I couldn't resist....even though I really know I should have. Please forgive me Drew. Love, Carson
  3. Bad habits

    Hi Old Man Contradiction..... The practice explained in this post here is what helped me rid myself of some "bad habits" : http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=149759 perhaps it will be useful for you too. Love, Carson
  4. Wow....I have just finished reading this thread from start to finish....a LOT of great stuff in here....I grabbed a few quotes as I went and thought I would share what had struck me as I read it: Totally agree 100%....although I am not a Father yet, my wife is (finally ) pregnant and I will be soon....even just knowing that a child has been concieved has put a completely new "spin" on the "virtues of love, devotion and unselfishness"....the thought of holding my child at the birth sends waves of sheer Bliss through my entire soul. I agree. My previous relationship (8 years) did not work because I did not know how to feel complete without her. Now that I know I am complete as myself, I have something worth giving to a partner and our subsequent offspring and the resulting communion is radiant. I love this....I have nothing to add...I just wanted to highlight this beautiful post. I can't wait to be a Dad. Awesome. I really like your posts Steve...thank you. I used to always say that I would never bring a child into this world, and I used to justify that with all different kinds of reasons. But after learning the joy of living for "other-selves" and not for "my-self" I have come to realize that Fatherhood is tailor-made for me. The radiant joy I feel just knowing that I will be a Father, let alone what it will be like BEING a Father, is enough to have to force myself to relax ..... I can get a little excited Wow....heavy. I had to read this (and the post it came from) like ten times before I began to really grasp the totality of what you are saying here.....and upon some reflection I have to tentatively agree! ("tentatively" because I find this so "shattering" that I don't want to "latch on" real hard like I may have a tendency to do with things this shattering for me). Thank you for making such a conscious post! Love it! Thanks for the great list! Same exact thing here. I dreaded getting married, (avoided it for 8 years with one partner, and had to end it or buy a ring and I refused to break as I saw no need for a piece of paper validifying our relationship) refused to bring a child into this world, and for most of my adult life I have worked for myself as I refused to relinquish any control to a "boss". But finding my wife, choosing to get married, (for all the wrong reasons) choosing to have a family, and choosing to "work for the man" has been the best thing I could have ever done for myself. What I lost in psuedo-freedom I gained in REAL-freedom. What a great thread. Thanks Everyone. Love, Carson
  5. I don't know about life anymore

    Don't know if this will help you Mikey, but it is what came to mind when I read your post..... Try to turn every action, every movement, every thought into a sacred offering to the Divine. For me, this brings joy into even the most difficult (or mundane) moments in Life. Love, Carson
  6. Ayahuasca

    Hi whitemonkey..... I have done ayahausca several times....I have done it in Peru with a shaman, I have done it on my own, and I have done it with other "psychonauts" in the mountains. And I still have a few Banisteriopsis Caapi vine pieces and a few Mimosa Hostilis root bark chunks on my altar......because, I believe that Ayahausca is sacred. But personally I find it is the icaros (songs sung by the shaman) that are the real magic. The icaros are what takes ayahausca to the next level. I think it all depends on how one approaches it and the personal tendencies brought to the experience(s). It could be easy to get caught up in trying to recreate an experience, or remain in the ayahausca state...it could be easy to become dependent on it for spiritual connection (the Santo Daime Church for example). But it doesn't have to be that way. I think there could be a role played by ayahausca in self-cultivation for some, but it is definitely not "necessary" for everyone.... likely not "necessary" for anyone. A useful tool for some though. Love, Carson
  7. 2012 is not the end of the world

    Hi Steam...... The link above (the abovetopsecret thread) is one of my favorite threads (on 2012) on the Internet..... "Hidden Hand" references "The Law of One" several times in that thread and basically he aligned himself with what is said in it. (If I remember correctly he (Hidden Hand) said that there were a couple of small errors in The Law of One but that is was basically correct) If you liked the abovetopsecret thread, you will like the Law of One.....fer shure Love, Carson
  8. euthanasia [not youth in asia]

    Hi mikaelz, sorry to hear of your sick puppy. My wife and I had to put down our dog about 2 years ago because she had lymph node cancer and it got really bad. It was probably (emotionally) the hardest decision we have ever had to make. I don't have much advice other then to feel the experience fully.....to embrace your dog, let her know you love her, and let her go. The feeling in time changes to one of love and joy for the time you spent together and the sadness of death soon loses it's flavor. My heart goes out to you and your family. Love, Carson
  9. 2012 is not the end of the world

    Hi steam.... Yeah I am pretty well read on just about every perspective of the 2012 winter equinox predictions.....my own personal beliefs align with what is written in the book "The Law Of One/The Ra Material" though. Which is that there will be a "harvest". Those that are "harvest-able" will move onto the next "Density"...those that are not will continue as is. If you have never read any of the Law of One, here is a link that will give you a run-down on the "Harvest" as forseen by Ra: http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?categ...arvest&ss=1 ....interesting reading no matter what you believe. Love, Carson
  10. Simple Practices

    AYP Deep Meditation..... http://www.aypsite.org/13.html Love, Carson
  11. 2012 is not the end of the world

    Don't you think that it might be worthwhile deciding exactly what your definition of "the world" is when stating things like this? "The world"-----humanity? "The world"-----the Earth? "The world"-----Life as we know it? Love, Carson
  12. The Ego and Thought

    Namaste Friends.... I thought that the below discussion warranted a new topic instead of threadjacking SB's Ego Inflation topic, so I have moved the related posts over here into a new thread. Here is the first post, written by Kate. (hopefully you don't mind me doing this Kate....if you do, I will have no problem editting this thread out....let me know) Love, Carson Originally posted by Kate in the Ego Inflation thread: Hum. What I am thinking right now is that "ego" is only the content that you decide it's going to be (structurally they are all the same;-)) So you could have a very small one (sorry to anyone to whom the double-entendre is offensive;-)) or you could have a really BIG one - encompassing - oh, I dunno - everything in all of its richness and connectedness- but that would mean you'd have to act accordingly And that is a lot of ff-ing work Apologies for the allusion;-) I love discussions when we start off thinking we're all talking about the same thing, but it has so many perspectives and then we get further on and we might ask ourselves if we are all talking about oranges and if they are from Sienna or not;-) I dunno SB - I think only you can tell your level of Secret Narcissism. If you are interested in Narcissus, read his myth. Or at worst, read Joseph Campbell or Thomas Moore. The question I would ask is why do you require confirmation of anything at all? What I'm wondering about here onTTB quite often is that that we seem to be using a sort of normative (albeit on a scale of what might be considered completely nuts to others;-)) approach to experiences that may or may not have a reference point until some time has passed and enough others have identified (I don't say "had" and we can look at that some other time) the experience to consider it "normal". I know that maps exist and yet they were made for (sometimes) very different cultures, different models, different epochs. Originally posted by CarsonZi in the Ego Inflation thread: Hi Kate and thank you for the really great post.....I hope you don't mind if I jump in where Mr. MarbleHead would not..... Hum indeed! I "think" you are right, but I am still unsure in my heart. I had written a post saying that the ego can be in unconscious aspects of your mind, but in the process of doing so, I realized that I don't actually fully agree with that....this is a great statement that is causing some really deep inquiry here.....thank you. "ego is only the content that you decide it's going to be" Some questions to inquire into: 1.) Can there *be* unconscious mind-content? 2.) Can you honestly be aware of mind-content and decide it *isn't* ego? 3.) Can the ego exist *without* mind-content? I don't know that I have answers to these questions.....I have written and re-written this post about 3 times now, and I still don't know, so I am going to drop these questions into Silence (samyama style) and see what comes up....or doesn't Thank you again for the Inquiry-inducing post Kate! Love, Carson Originally posted by Marblehead in the Ego Inflation thread: Hi Carson, Nice post. Interesting point you brought up. Yes, I think it is a given that ego is a component of our conscious mind. But what about our unconscious mind? The only good representations of our unconscious mind, I think, can be found in our dreams. I think that ego can be seen in many of our dreams. If we are the pivot of the dream then I think that the ego is expressing itself. However, in dreams where we are on the outside viewing ourself in that dream I think that the viewing is being done with an egoless mind. And in line with this thought, when we are in deep meditation I think that once we have become mindless (that is, egoless) we are open to realizations beyond the limits and controls of the ego. These are all new thoughts for me so I am fully open for alternate views. Peace & Love! Originally posted by CarsonZi in the Ego Inflation thread: Hi MarbleHead.... I guess you could ask yourself these two questions: 1.) Are all mind-concepts ego? 2.) Is the unconscious mind ego-less? It is my understanding that once you get to a certain point of Realization that you stop dreaming (but are instead "awake" while sleeping. I believe the state is called "Turiya". And I am also under the understanding that if you were truly "ego-less" you could not exist as a human being on Earth so-to-speak.....that there could be no physical form if you were truly ego-less. So, if both these two concepts were true that would mean that one could not live in Turiya while in human form...which is not the case. This means that (theoretically) you can relieve the awareness of the ego during dreaming, but not completely during any 3 Dimensional existence. Again this is all theoretically and completely speculative, as I do not have personal experience with living from Turiya all day (I have had glimpses during Deep Meditation, but they have never been lasting). I think that as long as we are still have dreams there is ego/conditioning still involved on some level. An "ego-less mind" will not dream in my opinion. Again, purely speculation....or perhaps an "educated guess" Absolutely. Thanks for the conversation. Love, Carson Originally posted by Kate: While Jung is stuck in his stone tower, I'd like to jump back in because I've been really MORE interested in the stuff Carson's referring to that anything else this past while. Carson, you said: 1.) Can there *be* unconscious mind-content? I'm so very not sure about this one. Certainly we habitually accept that there is and that it is even a driving force in us (one of many, now including "genes") Are we still "right" about this? What would it mean for us if we were wrong? This isn't meant to be anything other than an idea. I think what there might be is "habituation" (the "conditioning" that is often referred to by some Buddhists) which just doesn't require consciousness to function. So it's not a driving force unless it's set in motion, just an efficiency. I think there is a point at which it becomes painful BUT this point is reached only when this ability results in a response that isn't actually adapted to the situation at hand. The less than desirable result is then re-fed back into the whole thing. So we might also be looking at a system that is in constant reality-checking mode while also using its very efficient pattern-recognition process. I know I'm using sort of geeky-tech words, but I don't have others that I know to use to tell you what I'm after. 2.) Can you honestly be aware of mind-content and decide it *isn't* ego? Yes I think you can. If you're reading a novel for example and conjuring up the scenes in your mind, you know it isn't "you" - I think the "you" has to have a certain (something;-)) about it to be acceptable to you as a "you". What that might be is?? 3.) Can the ego exist *without* mind-content? I think that it would depend on 1) and 2) Thanks for the interesting discussion!
  13. The Ego and Thought

    Hey Unconditioned....a couple really great posts...thank you. "non-duel"....hahaha....Fruedian slip? Just bugging you On a more (somewhat) serious(ish) note, what you are saying above may sound cliche, but it's true....at least in my experience. As Byron Katie says (paraphrased by me ); "If you choose to argue/fight with Reality you will only lose 100% of the time." Looking at something and saying "this is a living thing", or saying anything at all is completely different from "just feeling it's presence". Feeling the presence of Life/Existence in every moment without labeling it is to experience Life from your True Nature.....silent awareness. No judgements, no labels, just awareness. I don't know that I agree with this. To drop the labels, to lose the judgements, to just BE....is to Know the experience, the experiencer and the experiencing all in One beautifully Blissful awakeness. You can exist without including the "fragments of your past", for you aren't the fragments of your past. Seeing it (IME) is not enough....you have to Live it too. Thanks for the great conversation! Love, Carson
  14. Santa Claus the Magic Mushroom

    Hahaha...no, no it doesn't do "nothing".....I would definitely class it as a "hallucinogen"....just not an entheogen. Sorry for giving the wrong impression. Love, Carson Stick to ayahausca, ibogaine and psylocibin mushrooms
  15. Santa Claus the Magic Mushroom

    Hey Scotty.... I have done them several times and each time was incredibly different from each other time. The time that I would say that they "worked the way they are supposed to" was when I ate about 20 grams of them....5 big caps that had been sitting on my altar for probably a year and a half. They basically put me to sleep and made me have some crazy dreams. For me, the benefits of a "trip" (whatever the entheogen) come from the "Forced Inquiry" of it. And the only way to have "forced inquiry" happen is to basically take your ego out of it's comfort zone....to have a "bad trip" as most people term them. For me Amanita Muscaria mushrooms can't do this simply because the ego is nullified at least slightly by the "dream" aspect of the trip. I find the most beneficial trips to be the ones where the ego is fully intact at first, but then is overwhelmed by the Forced Inquiry and is "dissolved" as a result. This can't happen with A.M. in my experience. Maybe if you combined them with a stimulant of some sort, but I highly doubt that, and I am out of the "psychonaut" phase of my life so I have no desire to start experimenting Love, Carson
  16. The Ego and Thought

    Hey Easy..... Yeah, I totally "get" you here. Pretty pointless to try to define/label that which is Undefinable. But in the interest of discussion and "pointing the way", I use terms like "Unbound Awareness", "Undefinable Existence", "Infinite Intelligence" etc etc to indicate what I experience as our "True Nature". But I think we both agree that what our True Nature is cannot be spoken of, for in doing so it is like talking about one-one/millionth of That. That's honest and I totally respect that. I was just talking from my experience....and that is always subject to change, so...perhaps I should take a lesson from you and just keep quiet Thanks for pointing the way Love, Carson Hi Kate..... Thank you .....not sure it's a "son" yet though .....I don't really care one way or the other....all I am praying for is a healthy baby. Hey, you are the one who started this discussion not me! I just created a new thread out of an old one...I own nothing! Thank you for being here and participating! Love, Carson
  17. Is your Taoism a "Religion"?

    I had a hard time answering the first question.... "My Taoism" doesn't include a cause or nature of the universe, but it definitely includes a purpose....that purpose being to Know itself as Divine.... I did answer 'yes' to this question despite this conflict though. Love, Carson
  18. The Ego and Thought

    Hi Easy and thanks for chiming in here! I really enjoyed reading your post....you have a poetic way with words for sure. Perceive, yes....experience, no. One can only "percieve" the surfaces, but one can experience all that underlies the surface....once you try to put a "perspective" on that experience though, then you are back on the surface....this is the way it is here anyways. I would agree. When we try to catagorize/label etc the feelings derived from our senses we are left with about one-one/millionth of the total experience. When we let go of catagorization/labelling we can just experience the totality of existence....Unbound Awareness. You can't. You can experience totality, but you cannot describe that in words....to try to is to catagorize/label the undefinable and you are back at the surface explaining one-one/millionth of totality. The only thing that remains completely and utterly consistent throughout all of existence is Unbound Awareness. Everything else, EVERYTHING else is impermanent illusion. Thanks for the stimulating conversation Easy! Love, Carson Namaste -O- and thanks again for all the wonderful additions to this thread.... Exactly. This is exactly my experience as well. The ego never disappears, it is just seen for what it is and it is no longer identified with. It can be disregarded just the same as a(n annoying) thought. Love, Carson
  19. The Ego and Thought

    Hi Kate and thanks again for contributing! Are you saying that for you pain=suffering? For me the old addage "Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional" is True. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Haha...maybe but I doubt it....probably closer to "overly-simplistic" then too complex I find it just fascinating that the "baby/infant/child" thing has come up here.....I found out a little over a week ago that my wife and I are expecting our first child. This has sent me on a bit of an Inquiry quest, and a lot of this type of stuff has come up in trying to formulate a "parenting plan"....you can read here: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6489 more in that respect if you desire.....a lot of great parenting and pregnancy advice there. Lack of awareness for sure. If we were always aware of our True Nature, we would always be loving/caring to each other.....you would be doing unto others, for there is no self that is not an "other-self". We are all One. Waterfalls ARE all the same on one level....they are all WATER. HOW they "fall" is always different, but a waterfall will always be water falling. Same with everything. Even on a physical level we are literally all One. There is nothing that exists in you that doesn't exist in me and vice versa. Haha...there's no "wrong"....there's only the thought-wrong. Best to let go of that thought Love, Carson
  20. The Ego and Thought

    Hi Steve....great post, thanks for contributing. It seems that every thread I start seems to die really fast (no interest), so I don't usually start them......glad there are at least a few of you out there who find this worth discussing! Would it be useful to define Ego? I'm not sure everyone is referring to the same concept. Are we speak of Freud's Ego? Are we discussing the experience of being separate or individual? Are we speaking of what Ramana would refer to as the "I" thought or the first thought. The thought that separates itself and creates the awareness of an experiencer that is separate from the experience? Are we referring simply to the nature of awareness? It's probably a good idea to define that which we are discussing eh? I personally define ego pretty much the same as Ramana Maharishi.....the "I-thought", "I-sense" "I-ness". That which pulls us away from/obscures the view of the True Nature of Consciousness (which is Oneness, IMO). -O-'s post was really interesting. I fully agree that we seem to be focusing on the nature of the experience of feeling separate from the "outside" world. I really like idea of a "horizon of conscious awareness" as defining self and other. I also like bringing physical sensation and perception into the discussion. It is impossible to define the experience of being the Unified Whole.....but at the same time as this experience there can be physical sensation. This I find fascinating...but in my experience, as soon as you try to "locate" the physical sensations within a Oneness experience, you are once again seperated from the Whole. I don't find that there is room for "perception" within the Oneness "state". There can be experience, but in grasping at, holding onto, striving for, or clinging to any specific perception of that experience, you will always lose the beauty of the Unbound Awareness experiencing itSelf. It is relatively straightforward to see how the illusion of a separate self stems from sensory perception. The tactile envelope of skin combined with the limitation of perspective to that which is 'behind my eyes' and 'between my ears' is a powerful experience. Nevertheless, establishing the origin of conscious awareness or non-conscious awareness is another matter altogether. Absolutely! Pretty hard to establish the origin of something that is "Sourceless"! If there was a Source to the Unbound Awareness, then it wouldn't be "UNbound"! hahaha My experience seems to be along the lines that there is awareness and each living organism experiences existence through its unique set of sensory organs along with all of the behavioral and cultural conditioning that comes along with it. I don't think that there are many other organisms on Earth that are "Self Aware" like we human beings are. I could be wrong though, but I think that is what makes the human experience so unique/special/important/desired etc etc. The only animal that I get a feeling could potentially be "Self Aware" similar to a human is a dolphin. And don't ask me why, I don't know...I just have a feeling. The nature of perception is such that it implies an separate and discreet focus of awareness. On the other hand, a committed attempt at discovering the nature and 'center' of this 'separate' awareness in all mystical traditions leads to the same conclusion - non-duality. It has different names and subtle differences that allow each of our tribes to claim superiority but it's all the same glimpse of the same truth. I agree 100% Steve. This is what the newborn experiences - a lack of separation from those rudimentary sensory impulses. There is no baby that is hungry, there is just hunger and so forth. This is different than Ego or self in which there is an experiencer yearning for or avoiding an experience. Perfectly said....I tried to say something similar above, but probably only made it more confusing...thanks for your clarity! Anyway - just a few random thoughts to hopefully add to the interesting thread. This type of thread is why I like Tao Bums, Buddha Bums, Jew Bums, Jesus Bums, Jaina Bums or whatever we want to call it. Thanks for contributing! It is great that we can discuss stuff like this here. Love, Carson
  21. The Ego and Thought

    Hi -O-...... I'd like to chime in if that is okay... Absolutely! Take 'er away! So... I don't believe that we are born with some enlightened "true" self which is somehow corrupted by society or conditioning etc. I wouldn't say this either.... Only you can "corrupt" yourself....noone can "corrupt" you. We all make our own decisions based on our perceptions at the time. So basically I wouldn't say that conditioning "corrupts" our "True Self" but I would definitely say that conditioning obscures the True Self. And I don't believe we are born with an ego either. On this I don't know what I believe. I know that my sister who has two children, born with the same man, raised in the same home, the same way, and they are TOTALLY different kids.....I mean complete polar opposites. But I don't know if this indicates that we come into life "with baggage" or not. It could just be as simple as what you are about to say below (which is my inclination as well).... My feeling is we are born with a set of faculties to percieve (eyes, ears, touch etc.) and the information gathered through these faculties has no context/meaning. And we ramble around, driven by sensory impulses and expereince the world as touch (rough versus soft etc), sight (color, shape), sound (load, quite etc) and as enough information is gathered a distinction of these things emerge. On the level of barbaric physical senses these distinctions are quite easily made - it is not complicated- and can occur just from trial and error. Essentially no ego is nessesary to expereince roughness, softness. Yes I totally agree. This is where conditioning/preferences/biases etc start to form. Do "I" like rough or soft? Loud or quiet? Bright or dark? However more complicated (and ultimatly intangible) distinction require some sort of ego perception... Let me back up - I don't define the ego as just the self - that is the personality - which is one object with in the ego. I feel the ego has a two fold nature - one side is the "world" the other side is the "self" - where the horizon of our conscious awareness is really the outer boundry of everything we "know" and as we move toward the center of the envelope there is a line which states anything inside of here is "self" anything outside is "world". And these two side are intimatly interwoven and interdependant on the other. (the "world" defines the "self - the "self" defines the "world"). So the world is the horizon of the "world" and with in this envelope there is another boundry which separates out the "world" from the "self". I agree with this....but I think you can make INFINITE divisions with the ego....it isn't limited to "world" and "self' (small 's'). Every ego will "divide" the world (and self) up differently. It is the act of dividing that is "egoic" though. To let go, just experience life like a baby, is to have no ego.....an ever present sense of "newness" or "innocence". I would like to share with you (and All) a passage from Adyashanti's book "Emptiness Dancing" that illustrates what it was like for Adya when he "awoke" and essentially start seeing life like an infant once again: "This tremendous innocence produces the feeling of an ever-present newness in Life. Since the awakening, the brain no longer holds and compares, so every moment is experienced as new, just as it would be in the mind of a young child. The adult mind tends to take things in, compare its perceptions to the litany of things that have happened in the past, and basically hold the attitude, "Been there, done that." It is rather arid, dry and boring. The innocent mind arises when this comparison is no longer happening." I think at some point, when enough nerons are firing or enough data is collected... at some point we find our "self" in the "world". I don't think it has anything to do with neurons firing or collecting enough data....in fact I think finding your Self in the World (or the World in your Self, both ways work) you need to LET GO of collecting data, let go of the need for answers and just abide in the beauty of Unknowing. To me this is where all this is pointing. So lets look at this as an example of make more complicated distinctions (but still a pretty straight forward one). To find our position with in a space - say where you are standing with in a room... we take in data of the object and the room through our very basic physical senses (sight sound etc). We can say "I am three feet to the left of the chair, and two feeet infront of the lamp - the back wall of the room is eight feet forward. To come to this distinction we MUST have a "self" in which to reference the object is the room - and we can only find the "self" in relation to these objects. I understand what you are saying, but I see things a little differently I think. I think a BABY would see things much differently. To me, the problem lies in trying to "find our position". Unbound Awareness has no position....it is everywhere, nowhere, everything and nothing. Trying to locate a "self" is futile...it doesn't exist. All that exists are ideas/thoughts/beliefs/conditioning/memories/biases/preferences etc etc etc....and these things are not the "Self". Ultimately there is no "Self"....all is the Self. So say there is a chair directly infornt of us with a table behind it (which we can not see) and a flower vase on the table (which we can see) [this is a more complicated distinction] - we may have difficulty in seeing where the chair ends and the flower begins - this is a confusion - a tension expereinced (a distinction which hasn't emerged, yet is important regarding our location in space). To make the distinction of the flower's location versus the chair's location all we need to o is simply move slight left or right. In doing so the flower's postion to us changes slightly differently then the chair's location. In changing our own position we ome to the different distances of the flower and chair -(by changing our "self" we have come to a new definition of "world"). In letting go of the need for answers, letting go of the need to make distinctions, we lose the "self". This, for me, seems to equal Pure Bliss Consciousness, which is my "goal" (even though I know there is nowhere to go and noone to get there). When you stop searching for answers (especially to where "you" end and where the "world" begins) it is possible to just abide in pure undefined existence, which for me equals Bliss. So this distinction came about because... 1) we collected data through raw awareness 2) we recreated that data in our minds as a perception 3) we return to our awareness, holding the perception in mind to "reality test" the perception. If hte perception is wrong, inaccurate - the inital tension felt (from the emerging distintion) is not released so we return back into the mind - recreate or modify the perception (and we do this by modifying the "self") and then return to awareness to "reality test" again. It is a conditional test loop. The returning to awareness while "holding" this perception is "intention" or intentional awareness (awareness under tension or with a forced direction/definition) so... 1)awareness 2) perception 3) intention... if by executing 3, 1 and 2 do not match then we repeat the cycle until the tension is realeased (or the intentional "holding" of perception is no longer needed - because the distinction is found in awareness... The tension is not truly released when you come to understand that your perception "matches Reality". It may give you some "space" for a moment, but as long as you are identified with the small 's' "self" there will always be mind-contractions/tension. At least that is my exerience....doesn't negate yours. So the caveat is... what happens when we are in the middle of this test loop and the moment passes - or the object we are attempting to distinguish is intangible (not found in the physical senses)... we return to awareness and the object we are attempting to reality test is gone? We are stuck "holding" the perception... and the accumulation of these held perceptions becomes the specifc definitions of "world" and "self". This "holding" is physical not psychical thus the body is important in allowing these perceptions to be literally "let go" and is felt in the body as simply "resistance". Yes I agree with this for sure. "Grasping", "holding", "clinging"....these are all attempts to define reality....which is in essence undefinable. Better to let go (with body-mind and spirit) and just abide in Undefined Existence. We then believe these perceptions to be "self" and then begin to defend it which keeps us in an never ending test loop from 1-3. Thus the importance of not defending the self, going to confessional, destroying the ego becomes our means of growing into greater awareness - and I beleive that there is a constant momentum naturally towards this - however until the "self" is distinguished as an object with in perception (or a persception) then we continue to stay in this test loop. And "suffering" is the result of working in opposition to this natural momentum. I think I "get" what you are saying and I think I agree. Basically you are saying that until the "self" (again small 's') is seen as a perception, and not as an object in and of itself, we will always be stuck defining our existence and suffering due to the seperation imposed from this, correct? And information which we have collected through raw awareness which does not have or has not been assined a context or meaning then floats around in awareness, but not with in conscious awareness and thus exerts a pressure onto conscious awareness (or felt as resistance and suffering). Can you really "collect information" without assigning it a context? Personally I don't think so. I think you can experience information, but the moment you try to "collect" it, it becomes distinguised as seperate from the self and reinforces the ego. Here a a completly different thought. Just as there is the idea of an collective unconscious - of which our subconcious is an individuality which lives with in this collective - perhaps ego is the individualty whcih lives with in a collective consciousness where we expereince the collective as cold hard objects like the ground, or the walls of our room... I'm pretty sure that is just stating exactly what both of us have been saying above in different words. The moment you stop BEING the collective unconscious/Unbound Awareness, you are (identified with) the ego/individual. (sorry for the length and the spelling). Likewise! Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed and well thought out post. It's a pleasure to converse with you! Love, Carson
  22. Santa Claus the Magic Mushroom

    Don't know if any of you out there have actually TRIED amanita muscaria mushrooms but they are nothing like "magic mushrooms" (active ingredient being psylocin/psylocibin). I don't find Amanita Muscaria to be much of an "entheogen" at all. On the other hand, I don't disagree with any of the info presented here. Just saying that A.M. mushrooms are nothing like what is commonly referred to as "Magic Mushrooms"....don't go taking them thinking you are going to get similar effects....you won't. Love, Carson
  23. The Ego and Thought

    Hi Kate and thanks for continuing this conversation with me....I think there is something really worthwhile (for me) hidden here........ Kate said While Jung is stuck in his stone tower, I'd like to jump back in because I've been really MORE interested in the stuff Carson's referring to that anything else this past while. Carson, you said: 1.) Can there *be* unconscious mind-content? I'm so very not sure about this one. Certainly we habitually accept that there is and that it is even a driving force in us (one of many, now including "genes") Are we still "right" about this? What would it mean for us if we were wrong? I think we are both in the same spot with this one. We definitely seem to grow up "knowing" (small 'k') that our unconscious mind plays a large part in "who we are". But in reality, is it not only the THOUGHT that our unconscious mind plays a part that gives the unconscious mind the ability to effect anything? And is there REALLY an "unconscious mind" at all? With the recent advances in quantum science we now know that "(conscious) perception" plays a large part in the way our environments present themselves.... so extrapolating on that, could we not say that what we call the "subconscious" doesn't actually exist until it becomes conscious or at least until ""we" become conscious of the unconscious? Does that make any sense? Kate said This isn't meant to be anything other than an idea. Haha...how could it be anything other (just being cheeky, don't mind me ) Kate said I think what there might be is "habituation" (the "conditioning" that is often referred to by some Buddhists) which just doesn't require consciousness to function. So it's not a driving force unless it's set in motion, just an efficiency. I definitely think there could be something to this. Is the unconscious mind just "conditioning" and does it only play a part if we "allow" it (on some level) to? Kate said I think there is a point at which it becomes painful BUT this point is reached only when this ability results in a response that isn't actually adapted to the situation at hand. The less than desirable result is then re-fed back into the whole thing. Can you clarify what "it" is in the sentence above saying; "there is a point at which IT becomes painful...."? I'm not sure what exactly becomes painful. Perhaps the Inquiry becomes painful, perhaps the habituation? Not totally sure what was meant here. Sorry for my ignorance. Kate said So we might also be looking at a system that is in constant reality-checking mode while also using its very efficient pattern-recognition process. I think I understand what you are saying and I agree. I think that the mind (in order to understand what it percieves as reality) needs to compare/contrast/evaluate/analyze/etc etc and that the common answers clung to by the mind become our conditioning/unconscious. At least this is how I feel right now....this is always subject to change Kate said 2.) Can you honestly be aware of mind-content and decide it *isn't* ego? Yes I think you can. If you're reading a novel for example and conjuring up the scenes in your mind, you know it isn't "you" This one seems pretty cut and dry, but is it really? It is well known by some that "we" are not our thoughts....yet, if you are reading a novel and picturing the scene, that "picturing" is a result of your personal "conditioning".....your mind's "thoughts/thought patterns". If there was no ego engaged while reading that book, would you still have the same "picturing"? I don't think so personally. Just my opinion though. Kate said I think the "you" has to have a certain (something;-)) about it to be acceptable to you as a "you". What that might be is?? What that might be is different for everyone which suggests that it is not "real", that it is ego. If "you" need something (anything really) in order to "be (acceptable to) you" then that is ego....not the "Real" you IMO. The "Real" you just exists regardless of any"thing". No some"thing" is necessary. Again IMO. Kate said 3.) Can the ego exist *without* mind-content? I think that it would depend on 1) and 2) Really? If "you" are in Samadhi, (no thoughts) does the "ego" exist in that moment for you? Kate said Thanks for the interesting discussion! Oh no....thank YOU Love, Carson Hey Marblehead...... Marblehead said Okay. So let's try a discussion of ego (again, Hehehe). Yes, sorry for starting yet another Ego thread, but I really thought that what Kate and I are talking about here didn't belong in SB's Ego Inflation thread, and that it deserved it's own topic. Probably just ego Hahahaha....I crack myself up Marblehead said I will suggest that when we are born we are total ego. We are everything and we are the only thing that is important. As long as 'we' are satisfied the world is in order but as soon as we have any kind of need the entire world is supposed to respond to our need. I will suggest the exact opposite.....when we are born there is NO ego....ego is conditioning/biases/habitual patterned responses......these are a result of time and experience. A newborn baby has none of these. Therefor IMO a newborn babe has no ego.....not until it starts to have experiences and develope memory. I also don't agree that a baby expects to have it's needs met. It's physical body requires it, and the baby suffers if that doesn't happen....but I HIGHLY doubt that an infant EXPECTS it's needs to be met....not at first anyways. Just my opinion. Thanks for the conversation. Love, Carson P.S. Sorry about the colors, but the quotes aren't working for me right now for some reason.
  24. Water 水

    "Flow like Water" Chapter 5:3 The Book of Zi Love, Carson