doc benway

If you're looking to define the thinker, just saying we or me isn't enough. We need to look deeper than that, otherwise why bother having the conversation. I question your definition of conscious vs unconscious thinking. When we think in our non-lucid dreams it is generally quite similar to our waking thought process. If you pay close attention, I suspect you won't find any difference. Similarly, we can become lucid in our sleeping dreams and carry on much as we would in our waking state, just without so many limitations.

Undoubtedly so - everything I said is just a description, a labeling. When we look, what do we find? Nothing... and everything. In the paradigm I currently feel most comfortable with the most basic/elementary "substrate" is space and awareness, the union of which is warmth. Unlike many labels, they are rooted in experiential practice as opposed to theory.

Sensing seems to be related to neurophysiology and subsequent interpretation and storage. Thinking seems to be primarily the action of memory interacting with language. Reason seems to be a set of rules rooted in self-constent application of language. To go deeper than that we will tend to get in to different spiritual or philosophical paradigms I suspect. No time for more right now. Krishnamurti is a great resource for discussions of the nature of thought and reason.

Given that we are energetic beings and our modes of sensory perception are all energetic, I would propose that everyone feels energy all the time. It is so fundamental to us that we don't know we are doing it. When it comes specifically to meridians, they are simply lines on a chart to guide practitioners, as has been mentioned. They are not discreet structures, they are conventions used by people to try and organize something organic and fluid into discrete and comprehensible patterns. I think that when we feel specific meridians it is a combination of the existing energy, which does not obey anatomical diagrams, and focused attention which creates particular patterns based on one's chosen paradigm.

Any and all of the above are as effective as the person wielding them. The longer and narrower the weapon, the more likely it will break - material is important. Anything can be used against you by a superior martial artist and anything wrapped around your fingers or wrist can cause some pain, injury, or used to control you. Beware of any weapons you can't easily let go of if needed. If you are looking for a self-defense tool, pepper spray is quite good but even that requires appropriate preparation, training, and accessibility. Something that can be quite effective, perfectly legal in all jurisdictions, and even permitted on a plane is a cane. Again, you need to put in the time to learn how to use it but it can be an awesome weapon, hidden in plain sight. https://www.canemasters.com/

Reason has its place in our lives certainly, as does emotion. And there is much more beyond for those who care to look with sincerity. Peace

Safe travels, dear one

Like most spiritual concepts we discuss, to have a meaningful discussion we'd have to agree on a definition of the 3rd eye and what it means to open it. I wonder if that is possible? In my view, if the 3rd eye is truly open, it cannot be abused or misused in any way as it is a direct connection to the truth which is love. On the other hand, I suspect that many who seek to open the 3rd eye are lusting after power and something more than what they perceive they already are. In that mind-space, we often throw caution to the wind.

I owe you an apology, Karl. I posted the stoned Spock photo because I thought you must be pulling my leg. Perhaps not... In answer to your question, morals and values arise spontaneously as a consequence of our ability to connect to others and our environment in a genuine way. When we feel that connection, that warmth, that spark of sharing something precious with another, life and awareness for example, we lose the ability to take advantage of another, we can no longer stand seeing other sentient beings suffer. That is the foundation for lasting and incontrovertible morality and ethics. Any morals or ethics derived through reason and thought are on shaky ground because the very mind that "created" them is equally capable of tearing them down. We see that every day in our lives as we see the heartlessness, the opportunism, the selfishness. Reason is extremely powerful, it has created human civilization (or at least takes the credit) but, at the same time, it is responsible for just as much destruction. As it rests on a foundation of relative causes and conditions, it is ever changing and unstable. Reference the numerous philosophies we see throughout human history. The moral and ethical truths that reason is reaching for and finds always just out of its grasp, is not of or created by reason, they are much more stable but also subtle and elusive and easily obscured and ignored.

Ask and you shall receive, I'll send it along with the others...

And to quote someone whose tolerance, patience, and lovingkindness I admire...

One of the best introductions I've ever read. It's wonderful to meet you Cody and a warm welcome to you.

Thanks for answering the question. I sort of inferred that but try not to be too presumptive. We'll have to disagree on that point as well. For me, higher reasoning plays little role in spirituality which is much more about feeling, openness, connection, and love. It's of value in the beginning when we are assimilating information but there is another universe of possibility that one can come to if one has the aptitude and requisite karma. I was of the opinion that you hold for a very long time. Not surprising as I tend towards the left brain very strongly and my background is in science. I mentioned Krishnamurti earlier because more than just about any other spiritual teacher (Watts is the other one), he really appealed to my higher reason. And he is a good enough teacher (or perhaps I was a good enough student, or both) that he helped me transcend that limitation as that is his core message regarding spirituality - we must go beyond the known and see what, if anything, there is that lies beyond the realm of thought. And it is not a question in the sense that he or anyone else can answer for you. It is an invitation to do the personal, internal investigation. In a sense he uses that higher reason to transcend itself. One of the yoga schools does the same, I believe, but I can't recall the name. Along the same lines there is a nice little book by Steven Harrison called The Question to Life's Answers in which he describes the fact that unanswered questions are alive and full of possibility whereas answers are dead. Once we answer a question we stop looking, stop being open. Anyway, I have my path and you have yours. I wish you well.

Not correct if A and B are not mutually exclusive categories. I can be both an asshole and a nice guy, depends when you catch me. The experiments are completely conclusive and not theoretical but rather experimental - do some reading on particle-wave experiments if you don't want to take my word for it. Too general to be an accurate statement, IMO. There's some very good work going on in physics. Maybe, maybe not. I'm surprised to hear you say this if you truly think science is "going up its own tailpipe." Here we can agree although I don't see it as the point of life, just a characteristic. For me they reveal the limitations of thought, logic, and reason. They are very valuable tools but to use your words, we are so much greater than we can even imagine [think] we can be. For me, they are an invitation to go beyond thought. This appears to have been John's intent based on his other writings and it is the invitation extended by most spiritual paths. That's where the work needs to be done, with the mind that wants to reject. Seeing that there is a limitation in the power of thought and logic, we may be willing to look beyond those. If your path is thought and logic and you have no interest in going beyond that, that is fine and it is your path. Then I wonder what spirituality means for you? This brings us back full circle to the start of this discussion where I asked: "Hi Karl, I don't mean to be argumentative but I am curious about what you think you can prove and how to go about that in the spiritual realm. Warm regards, Steve" That's true if we are discussing an analytical exercise. That's not where I'm coming from, nor was John.

Nope - both wave and particle properties exist in light and this has been verified many times experimentally. It's not that they are wrong, it's more the blind people and elephant thing... They don't see the whole picture - just like you and I don't see the whole picture. You're missing the point. John did not want us to remove those contradictions. For John those contradictions are pointing to a higher level of consciousness than the logic that is stymied by them. I base that on having read and listened to a fair amount of his work. And this speaks to the earlier point about creating our reality. We both read the same poem - to you it is an admonition for analytical reasoning and to me a pointer towards the non-conceptual. Anam Cara is a particularly good place to start if his work interests you.

Something I meant to address earlier - So does physics Is light a wave or particle? Or is physics not logical? The answer is - both and neither: If you simply use John's poem to prove your point, you are missing a great opportunity. He is asking us to embrace contradiction and see what that can teach us. He is not asking us to resolve the contradiction.

PS - this is probably my favorite thread on this site. Thank you CT

I can feel the air, the space, and the restfulness in this beautiful phrase. How eloquent, concise, and comprehensive all at once.

I'm glad you like the poem. Each of us creates our reality... or not, as you wish. Peace _/\_

In your conclusion here, you will invariably come into conflict with all of those other beings... This is the very source of conflict in our world in my view. Krishnamurti calls this the source of violence. The Buddhists refer to this as the source of all suffering - ignorance (I don't mean to be insulting). We'll simply have to disagree. Being is not restricted to logic, logic is the limited realm of the thinker, the 'me' I'll close on this topic with a quote from a wonderful poet and spiritual being named John O'Donohue. I've posted this before and hope it could be helpful here for some, it has been for me: "And if you want a point of departure for this new journey of soul, don't choose an intention, don't choose a prayer, don't choose a therapy, and don't choose a spiritual method. Look inwards and discover a point of contradiction within yourself. Stay faithful to the aura and presence of the contradiction. Hold it gently in your embrace and ask it what it wants to teach you."

I also don't know anything about the law of attraction you refer to and I also don't see a difference between 'feeling as if the thing you choose, instead of want, is already present' and visualization. For me they are one and the same. In the tradition I'm working with, the approach is a bit different. It's not about working towards getting what you want, or avoiding what you don't want. It's about looking at the one who feels that something is lacking or feels threatened. When we are able to see through the hold that one has on our lives, we may find a place where we recognize that we already have everything we need. As long as we work towards and allow ourselves to be driven by our wants or aversions, we will never be satisfied.

We'll have to disagree on this point. I'm simply sharing my perspective of your commentary. I wonder if you see the extent to which you are commenting on your own posts while projecting onto mine? It certainly seems that way from my perspective. Perhaps I'm coming across as competitive or defensive on this thread but I'm really not feeling either. I'm sharing my point of view regarding my path and my experience and not trying to comment on or denigrate yours, as you really haven't shared anything about your own. I'm also comfortable pointing out when I disagree with your statements about MY experience. My objective is to share my experience so that others have a balanced perspective as our opinions differ. Yes, I get all of that. I've been through that process in fact, and it remains a part of my view, but only a part. One of my earliest spiritual teachers preached that aspect of the truth very convincingly - J Krishnamurti. It was an important realization for me - I can remember the exact moment that it clicked, I was on a bus going to the airport in Seattle reading To Be Human and had that sudden, powerful insight about the critical role of personal and independent investigation and effort - but I currently see that view as incomplete. You are free to disagree, as you made clear we each walk our own path and have our own, unique view, and it's important to acknowledge that will change for each of us over time as long as 'we remain open to the new' as K would have put it. I'm in a very different place now. I'm in a place where I am able to think, learn, and act independently without that fear you refer to. I am able to continue to think and act independently within a traditional framework that supports that independence. That personal work that no one can help me with is, and always will be, the central practice and that can be and is supported by my teacher, his lineage, the teachings, and our spiritual community. And I've come to a very different conclusion than yours - that we're not alone in this world, we are rich with the support of other beings, be they people, animals, natural spirits, our environment, whatever our frame of reference contains. And sometimes they can provide us with challenges rather than support but even those challenges can be taken as our path and can support our growth. And those others are all very meaningful to me, in fact they are infinitely more important than the 'me' that continually tries to exert its importance in my thoughts. You see, the fear you are referring to comes from the very presence of 'me' that sees itself as alone, as separate, as a self. That 'me' is the fundamental error and a very powerful method for correcting that error (letting go of the identification with 'me', and transcending that fear) is in feeling and cultivating the depth of our connection with others. My teacher is frequently reminding us that our time together (when we gather for teachings)is not so much about us gathering information, learning new mantras, prayers, or practices, rather our time together needs to be more about learning how to connect with each other in a meaningful way, how to be open, how to feel that warmth that comes from the openness and connection. That very openness and connection is at the heart of the awakening and enlightenment we are discussing in this thread, in my view. No need to placate or patronize me. Respond to me as you see fit and I will do you the same courtesy. I appreciate your honesty and to the extent that you are genuinely trying to help me on my path, which I think you are, I sincerely appreciate your help. Your comments have already stimulated me to look at my view a bit more deeply and I do think they have been helpful. Warm regards...

Beautiful and awakened post as ever manitou. I just read about an interesting new experimental verification of quantum entanglement. That pupillary connection, that love that we feel seems to me to be empirical evidence of entanglement in our lives. No need for scientific verification for us to see the connection and see its importance in our lives.

Agreed And yet, would he have reached that point without his conscious effort? Hence my comment - it's important for us to do what we need to do when we need to do it and not give up on active processes while they are supporting us. I think we can sometimes allow our intellect to think we've progressed farther than we have only to fall back into confusion. I've done it.