The Natural State

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Moondance

I wouldn’t call resonance an intellectual understanding. Intellectual understanding could be said to be where we merely have an idea about something from reasoning or hearsay. Here’s a poor example, imagine that you’ve never tasted a lemon but you know it to be sour - that’s a conceptual idea or understanding. One day you place a slice of lemon in your mouth and right there you have the felt-sense recognition that it is sour. It’s of a different order.

I have no interest in demonising the mind, the mind is a necessary and useful biological instrument. It’s just that a dominance of unnecessary (largely unconscious) cogitation distorts our perceptions and veils us from the ineffable obviousness of Life presenting as it is without a sense of separation or fragmentation… of THIS - which is not a thought or idea or concept (though we can talk about it conceptually to a certain extent.)

I get what you are saying here, Moondance, at least I think I get what you have said here.

In my (mentally perceived! ) view, you are the one who is 'separating' the 'mind' from ex-peer-ience. IMO, there can be no (consciously or unconciously) registered ex-peer-ience (get it? ) without (conscious or unconscious) 'mind' being an 'agent' thereof.

I think of 'mind' as being an inseparable component of 'soul' (Being, Life, Existence, THIS, THAT, what have you) ...

... and I think of 'feeling' (Emotion, Resonance, Emotional Resonance?, Responsiveness, Relatedness?) as also being an inseparable component thereof, ...

... such that wherever/whenever there is (intellectual) 'mind' perception, there is also (emotional) 'felt-sense' recognition.

Its just that one's (soul's) attention (i.e. 'focus') may and often does become 'narrowly' focused on one or the other, and so sometimes, sometimes and even often, 'goes off' on a self-created/generated tangent (in relation to reality, that is) in an unbalanced way.

The 'solution' to the (kinds of) 'problems' that result from 'flights' of either mental or emotional 'fantasy' is to 'train' one's (soul-attention) 'radar' on to receive and process both kinds of information without giving greater 'weight' (importance) to one or the other.

Like driving a car, one has to keep one's eye on the road to avoid drifting into either 'gutter'.

Without such 'road' sense, all the talk and coaching about 'mind' and/or 'felt-sense' will just result in more 'sophisticated' kinds of self-satisfied dysfunctionalities (such that 'players' just engage in 'playing' in a 'deeper', i.e. more 'impressive', 'ditches'), IMO.

I think that, just as over-simplistic ones do, over-complexly (fine point by fine point) differentiating philosophical constructs generally fall into this category.

Regardless of that, a person whose eye (or 'I') is 'on the road' will 'automatically' (naturally?) 'correct' any over-steering tendency, I think. Please note: I 'see' (imagine?) and 'feel' (sense?) you as having a balanced approach in this regard, this despite the fact that I am making 'counterpoints' in relation to the ones you have made.

High-Five, Mind-full Dude!

[Moondance]

Hi David

Inadvertently (I’m sure) a straw man has entered by the back door. I’m not hostile to mind. In its broadest sense, the matrix that we call mind is a spectacular occurrence - which is, of course, a manifestation and necessary aspect of Source. Going down this route is to miss the point - which was actually made in the comment that you replied to:

“It’s just that a dominance of unnecessary (largely unconscious) cogitation distorts our perceptions and veils us from the ineffable obviousness of Life presenting as it is without a sense of separation or fragmentation… of THIS - which is not a thought or idea or concept (though we can talk about it conceptually to a certain extent.)”

I wouldn’t refer to mind as an agent though and I’m not sure how a ‘soul’ fits into the picture - but these may just be semantic preferences.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Moondance

Inadvertently (I’m sure) a straw man has entered by the back door. I’m not hostile to mind. In its broadest sense, the matrix that we call mind is a spectacular occurrence - which is, of course, a manifestation and necessary aspect of Source. Going down this route is to miss the point - which was actually made in the comment that you replied to

I apologize for the 'straw' effect. The conceptualized thangs we are talking about, like mind. are quite the shapeshifters - with uncontrolled 'implications' shooting off in all sorts of directions.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Moondance

“It’s just that a dominance of unnecessary (largely unconscious) cogitation distorts our perceptions and veils us from the ineffable obviousness of Life presenting as it is without a sense of separation or fragmentation… of THIS - which is not a thought or idea or concept (though we can talk about it conceptually to a certain extent.)”

I agree with your point about 'cogitation', BTW. That can get so self-reinforcing as to become 'unbalanced' at which point 'fantasy' may look (and feel!) like 'reality' "presenting itself as it is", which was my point.

Also, BTW, nothing it 'necessary', therefore nothing is 'unnecessary' either, in my view that is. Am not saying that what follows pertains to your 'perceptions'/'observations' (I can't 'see' 'into' your 'mind'), but, the way I see it, peeps often presumptuously declare others' 'cogitations' to be 'unnecessary' as a backhanded way of asserting that certain others' perceptions/views are Life (Truth?) distorting. If anything, I am 'arguing' against your (tactical?) style or 'argument', that is all.

I hope you can register the significance of the 'reasoning' which gives rise to my perceptions/observations and consequent utterances in the above regard which I think is valid in its own right.

[davidsun]

Hence the (real! ) phenomenon sumamrized by "One man's 'reality' is another man's 'fantasy'," aye what?

Or to put it another way, referencing this thread's title, "One man's 'natural state' may be another man's 'unnatural' one."

I hope you can catch onto my 'ride' - Woohoo, Bro!

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Moondance

Hello Iamit (and iamthat)

I think that what you are describing here could loosely fit with what I’ve referred to as the ’top-down’ approach. Mind is one of those words which can mean different things in different contexts. Often people use it as a synonym for the brain or the intellect - yet sometimes it is used as another name for consciousness (for instance Dzogchen talks of ‘the nature of mind’ etc.) When I say don’t look to mind I mean (and I suspect that iamthat means the same) don’t look to the analytic, abstracting, aspect of mind/the intellect since this is not (certainly, not just) about an intellectual understanding or an application of knowledge/information. But of course in its broader sense mind is involved in aspects of cognition and perception.

What is it in the seeker that resonates with the concept "All is One" in your view?

Reflection by mind for the purpose of understanding such a resonance feels very different to the resonance itself, and yet both feel like activity of mind.

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by Iamit

What is it in the seeker that resonates with the concept "All is One" in your view?

Reflection by mind for the purpose of understanding such a resonance feels very different to the resonance itself, and yet both feel like activity of mind.

Well "resonate with the concept all is one" is your phrase so I can’t really know exactly how that is for you. But the word ‘resonance’ normally conjures up something like a feeling-sense or even intuition as opposed to an intellectual understanding or application of knowledge/information.

But either way, yes, it involves mind (in its broadest sense.) But we must be careful not to reify mind. Mind is a process, a complex play of a greater scheme. You could think of it as a kind of prism - it organises the light in a certain way - but it’s not the source of the light.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Moondance

Well "resonate with the concept all is one" is your phrase so I can’t really know exactly how that is for you. But the word ‘resonance’ normally conjures up something like a feeling-sense or even intuition as opposed to an intellectual understanding or application of knowledge/information.

But either way, yes, it involves mind (in its broadest sense.) But we must be careful not to reify mind. Mind is a process, a complex play of a greater scheme. You could think of it as a kind of prism - it organises the light in a certain way - but it’s not the source of the light.

'I' resonate 'in synch' with what you say here, M - my 'intellect' just serving as a conduit (mechanism?) for said 'bell ringing' to 'happen', I think.

Originally Posted by Iamit

What is it in the seeker that resonates with the concept "All is One" in your view?

Reflection by mind for the purpose of understanding such a resonance feels very different to the resonance itself, and yet both feel like activity of mind.

This snippet which I copied and saved from a reading of (a translation of) one of the Vedas speaks to the issue of the "what" that you ask about, 'I' think.

"Not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye can see: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what [most] people here adore;
Not that which the ear can hear, but that whereby the ear can hear: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what [most] people here adore;
Not that which speech can illuminate, but that by which speech can be illuminated: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what [most] people here adore;
Not that which the mind can think, but that whereby the mind can think: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what [most] people here adore."

See https://www.ananda.org/yogapedia/brahman/

P.S. 'I' personally added the "[most]"s for truth-full-ness sake.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by davidsun

'I' resonate 'in synch' with what you say here, M - my 'intellect' just serving as a conduit (mechanism?) for said 'bell ringing' to 'happen', I think.


This snippet which I copied and saved from a reading of (a translation of) one of the Vedas speaks to the issue of the "what" that you ask about, 'I' think.

"Not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye can see: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what [most] people here adore;
Not that which the ear can hear, but that whereby the ear can hear: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what [most] people here adore;
Not that which speech can illuminate, but that by which speech can be illuminated: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what [most] people here adore;
Not that which the mind can think, but that whereby the mind can think: know that to be Brahman the eternal, and not what [most] people here adore."

See https://www.ananda.org/yogapedia/brahman/

P.S. 'I' personally added the "[most]"s for truth-full-ness sake.

If Brahman/Oneness is the only reality then yes it must be that which manifests as resonance. But does Brahman/Oneness manifest as Mind for that purpose, or is Mind simply another word for Brahman/Oneness?

What is the nature, capability, function, and purpose of Mind? I realize that is probably asking mind to reflect on itself which may not be something that it is often asked to do but it may be interesting to know what it thinks about itself:). I put this as a new thread as well.

[weareunity]

Hello all.
Musing:- that all is process constantly interacting constantly dancing the dance of cause and consequence. Sometimes in interactions manifesting as form, but still dancing the same dance. There is no-thing doing any-thing. Every-thing is process. Process is doing everything.
There is a relationship between time and process, is time a prerequisite for process or does process bring time into being as the necessary environment for cause and subsequent consequence becoming cause and subsequent consequence becoming cause and subsequent consequence etc.-or both or neither? Does subsequentiallity actually need time, or can the subsequent be contemporaneous? Perhaps it is simply the observation of the phenomenon that requires time.

If this musing has validity, what implication/s for this current discussion?

Ignore if thought irrelevant or nonsensical. Musing continues whatever.
petex