Toni

Are negative emotions the cause of sickness?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

 

Human-made systems and nature-made systems don't seem to be on the same page though.  

 

In nature, aversion is a built-in survival mechanism that works even on the level of unicellular organisms.  Aversion to noxious stimuli is observed, e.g., in amoebae -- if you put a bunch of them in a dish with clean water, they will swim all over it minding their business, but if you add a drop of ink to one side of the dish, they will start swimming frantically to the other side, and as the ink expands and spreads, they will all crowd to the last remaining area of clear water.  And when that's gone, they will die.  In humans, aversion is built into our physiology in many ways that bypass our conscious mind and rely on our conscious body to make decisions about what to accept and what to reject -- e.g. the vomiting reflex (primarily to expel ingested or endogenic poison, and in the case of a horrible scene, emotional and mental poison), spontaneous abortion of a compromised non-viable fetus, and so on.    

 

Attachment is a built-in mechanism of caring for the young in all species whose young are born dependent on parents.  Sharks and reptiles don't have attachments because their young are born ready to survive on their own.  Birds and all mammals do because it is imprinted in them toward survival of the individual and the species.  In humans, likewise, attachment is secured by our physiology, in the form of, e.g., 'love hormones' -- oxytocin (which healthy women and healthy men close to them release in response to the presence of their baby), pheromones (in species reproducing sexually, they help target the most compatible candidates) and so on.   

 

Ignorance is in the eye of the beholder.  :) 

 

I believe repressed emotions are the root of sickness -- but not just negative.  Repressed positive emotions can do as much damage, if not more.  Love is healthy.  Early deprivation of love is deadly.  Institutionalized abandoned infants tend to not survive past 6 months of age if they are adequately cared for in terms of food, physically adequate accommodations and hygiene but aren't held, caressed and interacted with in an attached, loving way.  Beyond this extreme, a plethora of deficient positive emotions born of love deprivation early in life sets the stage for a lifetime of health impairment, emotional, mental and, yes, physical too.  It's all connected.      

 

   

It is true, and not to love/be loved as a teenager is devastating. I mean with bf and gfs, not with family

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

 

Human-made systems and nature-made systems don't seem to be on the same page though.  

   

Compare common meditative experiences with common dissociative symptoms. Scary, really. 

 

But a Xian is a transcendent, and Nei Dan reverses the course of Nature. 

 

"Natural" isn't compatible with this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Toni said:

It is true, and not to love/be loved as a teenager is devastating. I mean with bf and gfs, not with family

 

The most devastating love deprivation is developmental though.  The earlier it strikes, the worse the effects.  I am of the opinion that not remembering one's early childhood -- even infancy -- is traumatic amnesia in every single case.

 

People just don't know what love is anymore.  

 

Teenage love that is perceived as salvation or devastation (depending on whether one manages to get it or not) is one outcome.  Someone who was loved properly from the start has love as part of their metabolism, internalized in every cell.  They are not as starved for love by the time they are old enough to try procuring it for themselves outside the family as those who are malnourished and deficient.  It's not unlike any other normal natural need.  Someone who lived a chronically dehydrated life in the desert is a lot more desperate for water than someone who lived by the pure stream.  Someone who spent years looking for food leftovers in toxic dumpsters may feel the need for a proper meal more acutely than someone who never went hungry.

Edited by Taomeow
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

 

Human-made systems and nature-made systems don't seem to be on the same page though.  

 

In nature, aversion is a built-in survival mechanism that works even on the level of unicellular organisms.  Aversion to noxious stimuli is observed, e.g., in amoebae -- if you put a bunch of them in a dish with clean water, they will swim all over it minding their business, but if you add a drop of ink to one side of the dish, they will start swimming frantically to the other side, and as the ink expands and spreads, they will all crowd to the last remaining area of clear water.  And when that's gone, they will die.  In humans, aversion is built into our physiology in many ways that bypass our conscious mind and rely on our conscious body to make decisions about what to accept and what to reject -- e.g. the vomiting reflex (primarily to expel ingested or endogenic poison, and in the case of a horrible scene, emotional and mental poison), spontaneous abortion of a compromised non-viable fetus, and so on.    

 

Attachment is a built-in mechanism of caring for the young in all species whose young are born dependent on parents.  Sharks and reptiles don't have attachments because their young are born ready to survive on their own.  Birds and all mammals do because it is imprinted in them toward survival of the individual and the species.  In humans, likewise, attachment is secured by our physiology, in the form of, e.g., 'love hormones' -- oxytocin (which healthy women and healthy men close to them release in response to the presence of their baby), pheromones (in species reproducing sexually, they help target the most compatible candidates) and so on.   

 

Nothing you describe is an indication of a disagreement between the two.

The teachings on the 3 root poisons are a practical method for cultivating health and realization, not a statement of universal ontology.

These teachings do not negate the benefits and reality of natural processes at all.

They describe the source of negative (and positive) emotions and patterns we may observe in our minds and lives, and offer ways to understand, transform, or liberate them, should that be of interest to a practitioner.

 

1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

 

Ignorance is in the eye of the beholder.  :) 

 

In this case, ignorance has a precise meaning. 

The lack of recognition of the non-dual essence of reality.

That is considered the fundamental poison at the root of all illness and suffering in the Bön paradigm.

The awakening of non-dual wisdom (the opposite of this specific ignorance), is considered the source of all healing.

 

1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

 

I believe repressed emotions are the root of sickness -- but not just negative.  Repressed positive emotions can do as much damage, if not more.  Love is healthy.  Early deprivation of love is deadly.  Institutionalized abandoned infants tend to not survive past 6 months of age if they are adequately cared for in terms of food, physically adequate accommodations and hygiene but aren't held, caressed and interacted with in an attached, loving way.  Beyond this extreme, a plethora of deficient positive emotions born of love deprivation early in life sets the stage for a lifetime of health impairment, emotional, mental and, yes, physical too.  It's all connected.      

 

   

 

Nothing more unhealthy than isolation, at any age.

 

I don't think the causes of sickness are limited only to repressed (and suppressed) emotions.

Expressed emotions can also be harmful, especially when that expression serves to reinforce and reify the negative emotions rather than relieve. Expressing of emotions can be violent and harmful to self and others. It can also be self-reinforcing. I have a friend that always complains about life. He claims it is a way to blow off steam but, in fact, the pressure is never relieved, it just continues to build. We're seeing the communal and individual harm of expressed emotion in social media. A vicious cycle of expressed negative emotion, retaliation, and escalation, like a digital forest fire, burning up relationships of all kinds. Profoundly unhealthy for individuals and the collective, IMO.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cleansox said:

Compare common meditative experiences with common dissociative symptoms. Scary, really. 

 

But a Xian is a transcendent, and Nei Dan reverses the course of Nature. 

 

"Natural" isn't compatible with this. 

 

Methinks it depends on whether you see neidan as going against nature or going against something that went against nature. 

 

There's options.  Cultivation goals are transcendent but what it is one is planning to transcend is the cat's meow of it.  The cat's meow of it.  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, steve said:

I don't think the causes of sickness are limited only to repressed (and suppressed) emotions.

 

Acute sickness caused by trauma or pathogen is not, although the ability or inability to mount healthy defenses and recover from either is most definitely affected.

 

22 minutes ago, steve said:

Expressed emotions can also be harmful, especially when that expression serves to reinforce and reify the negative emotions rather than relieve. Expressing of emotions can be violent and harmful to self and others. It can also be self-reinforcing. I have a friend that always complains about life. He claims it is a way to blow off steam but, in fact, the pressure is never relieved, it just continues to build. We're seeing the communal and individual harm of expressed emotion in social media. A vicious cycle of expressed negative emotion, retaliation, and escalation, like a digital forest fire, burning up relationships of all kinds. Profoundly unhealthy for individuals and the collective, IMO.

 

But none of it is expressed emotions.  It's merely the effects of a reverberating circuit of repressed emotions from the past continuously agitated by present triggers and coming to the surface in endless attempts for processing and resolution.  Which are bound to fail because emotions that were repressed in the past can't be resolved in the present unless consciousness steps in to connect the present trigger to the past source.   Systemic consciousness at that, not thoughts in the head, not ideas of the neocortex alone. 

 

Which, in the case of projection, dumping, never-ending current responses to non-current triggers (built into the system by all past repressed emotions and traumatic memories that really call the shots in the absence of communication between the conscious and the unconscious where they have been stuffed) is indeed neither healthy nor healing.  The whole pattern of such behavior is very telltale though.  The pain is real.  The attribution of it is erroneous, and the methods utilized in an attempt to ease it are wrong.   The right ones are rare and precious and very, very hard to find.  And not omnipotent.  Not everything broken can be fixed even with the best of glues.

 

Believe you me ( just a figure of speech -- you don't have to of course)) ): most things civilized people perceive as emotions are merely neurotic manifestations of pain.  

 

 

 

 

Edited by Taomeow
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

Methinks it depends on whether you see neidan as going against nature or going against something that went against nature. 

 

There's options.  Cultivation goals are transcendent but what it is one is planning to transcend is the cat's meow of it. 

Some just get stuck in the Void. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

Methinks it depends on whether you see neidan as going against nature or going against something that went against nature. 

 

It seems to me that it's all nature, just what kind of nature you want. We could set up the conditions to cultivate health and happiness or misery and illness. I wouldn't say illness and suffering is unnatural, because it appears to me animals also get ill and suffer (maybe even plants--- I tend to be pro-plant sentience, but others may disagree). 

 

Otherwise, why would I follow my will power and practice wuji/qigong/meditation rather than follow my evolutionary bodily instincts to binge on high calories foods (and to eat them all NOW rather than save some for later)? :lol: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is bumping up against a dilemma I´ve been turning over in my head for some time now: the advisability of Morning Pages.  Writing "morning pages" is a practice popularized, if not invented, by Julia Cameron in her book, The Artist´s Way.  You write three pages of whatever comes to mind longhand without stopping or editing in any way.

 

Morning pages, or at least my cheating version of it, has been a longtime off-and-on practice for me.  Though I sometimes find it tedious, I almost always feel better -- clearer -- afterwards, which leads me to think it´s doing me good.  Still, part of me doubts.  Untethered, my brain tends to spew a lot of negative stuff and I wonder if habitually regurgitating this negativity is "expressing emotions" in the negative sense @steve mentioned.  Or perhaps what I´m doing doesn´t really count as expressing emotions at all, a possibility @Taomeow´s post above suggests to me.  

 

When is emotional expression, or what commonly passes for emotional expression, actually useful?  When is it just deepening negative neurological tracks in the brain?  How can you tell the difference?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Acute sickness caused by trauma or pathogen is not, although the ability or inability to mount healthy defenses and recover from either is most definitely affected.

 

 

But none of it is expressed emotions.  It's merely the effects of a reverberating circuit of repressed emotions from the past continuously agitated by present triggers and coming to the surface in endless attempts for processing and resolution.  Which are bound to fail because emotions that were repressed in the past can't be resolved in the present unless consciousness steps in to connect the present trigger to the past source.   Systemic consciousness at that, not thoughts in the head, not ideas of the neocortex alone. 

 

Which, in the case of projection, dumping, never-ending current responses to non-current triggers (built into the system by all past repressed emotions and traumatic memories that really call the shots in the absence of communication between the conscious and the unconscious where they have been stuffed) is indeed neither healthy nor healing.  The whole pattern of such behavior is very telltale though.  The pain is real.  The attribution of it is erroneous, and the methods utilized in an attempt to ease it are wrong.   The right ones are rare and precious and very, very hard to find.  And not omnipotent.  Not everything broken can be fixed even with the best of glues.

 

Believe you me ( just a figure of speech -- you don't have to of course)) ): most things civilized people perceive as emotions are merely neurotic manifestations of pain.  

 

And those are precisely what the internal work associated with the 3 poisons target. In fact, my teacher refers to it as pain - short for karmic, conceptual pain bodies. When we encounter methods and teachings that work for us they are indeed precious. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

When is emotional expression, or what commonly passes for emotional expression, actually useful?  When is it just deepening negative neurological tracks in the brain?  How can you tell the difference?

 

I've always been told that it is the state of mind when this stuff arises that matters. When you set up to meditate, a lot of things might come bubbling up. The more clinging/craving/aversion one applies, the more we're increasing/reinforcing those mental habits. But if we can relax and let them arise and dissolve, then it is considered a way to purge old karmic seeds. 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to avarice and aversion, I think there´s a huge difference between acting "as if" and the real thing.  Two people open an umbrella in a rainstorm.  One is averse to the rain and one is not, yet the visible action is the same;  the invisible difference is in the mind of the storm walker.  Feeling fundamentally OK with inclement weather frees a person to live more joyfully.  A person can take steps to stay dry without cursing, however mildly, the cloudburst.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

This topic is bumping up against a dilemma I´ve been turning over in my head for some time now: the advisability of Morning Pages.  Writing "morning pages" is a practice popularized, if not invented, by Julia Cameron in her book, The Artist´s Way.  You write three pages of whatever comes to mind longhand without stopping or editing in any way.

 

Morning pages, or at least my cheating version of it, has been a longtime off-and-on practice for me.  Though I sometimes find it tedious, I almost always feel better -- clearer -- afterwards, which leads me to think it´s doing me good.  Still, part of me doubts.  Untethered, my brain tends to spew a lot of negative stuff and I wonder if habitually regurgitating this negativity is "expressing emotions" in the negative sense @steve mentioned.  Or perhaps what I´m doing doesn´t really count as expressing emotions at all, a possibility @Taomeow´s post above suggests to me.  

 

When is emotional expression, or what commonly passes for emotional expression, actually useful?  When is it just deepening negative neurological tracks in the brain?  How can you tell the difference?

 

I not only think the difference is profound but I know for a fact that some of it is measurable objectively (much as I'm not a fan of this criterion for assessing human states, sometimes you want to use this tool.)  That's my primal training speaking, where the difference between things psychology working or not was determined by changes in physiology.  (At least in the original non-bastardized and non yet thoroughly corrupted version the end tail of which I managed to catch, just in time before it all went the way of all flesh.)  E.g. if writing in your journal -- one such session, or ten, or three years thereof -- finally resulted in your making the kind of conscious connections that eliminated your desire to "binge on high calorie food," without any effort on your part, without your being divided onto yourself (your mind saying one thing about those foods that it believes are doing you no favors and your body saying another, nagging you for those favors), I would say it is actually an efficient way toward emotional expression.  If, also as a result of this practice (or any other), your health parameters normalized -- e.g. your blood pressure, in case it is too high or too low, became normal and stayed there; your core body temperature, ditto; your heart rate, ditto; your brain waves, ditto; and so on -- then I would say the practice does indeed work to process and resolve some stored trauma. 

 

Far as subjective criteria, the one that is pretty reliable is the restoration of the original memory -- again, and I can't stress it enough, systemic, not just a construct in the head.  Everything you are has to unlock it, by "being there" in your entirety, in the entirety of the being you were then, not as a visit from an older wiser stronger more experienced better protected you but as the actual defenseless someone of back then -- the bridge between the two can only be built by systemic total recall.  And that's when your more mature, resilient today's consciousness can stop reverting to the unconscious mode, by making part of the unconscious conscious.  And then the next bit.  I equate systemic memory and consciousness, in case I haven't said it a million times before.  The memory of who we really are in this-here life, of what we really lived through in this-here life, comes before the enlightened memory that "we are all one" and so on.  I don't believe the latter matters at all without the former.  Know thyself is the ticket...   but the actual "thyself" of this life for starters.  Skipping that is not going to unify the whole of reality.  You can't leave your 6-year-old, your 6-moths-old, your 6-hours-old self out of that universal picture without a hole in that picture the size of the universe.  For that's what each of us is -- yes, at 6 hours of age too, and at 6 minutes of age, ditto.  

 

And finally, when you make a current choice to react emotionally or to keep your feelings to yourself, in a healthy scenario you have a choice.  In an unhealthy one, people tend to feel "too much" or "not enough" (depending on which defense mechanisms are working as the main default setting), and are either unable to feel where it's normal and natural to feel (and have an easy time keeping the lid on their emotions), or else unable to contain their feelings, no adequate brakes, and everything bursts out into the open even if they know from prior such experiences it hurts themselves and others.  When emotions are healthy, one can trust oneself to express or not express without any need to "work on one's anger problem" or to "stay positive" or what not.  After much work of the "know thyself" variety I trust my anger as much as I trust my love.  It's not misguided.  It's not excessive.  It's a formidable beast but thoroughly, thoroughly domesticated.  I have a choice to let it off the leash or not -- depending on whether we decide, together, that it's time to go for a walk or to take a nap.  I know that in nearly all situations it will stay on a leash, so if it feels like going for a walk, why not let it -- it's alive and healthy, not a rabid beast.  I trust it.  I know that I absolutely don't want to kill it, disown it, or deny its validity and, I'll say it, beauty.  The real beast is beautiful no matter what it is -- anger, love, compassion, sadness, rage, self-sacrifice, courage, fear.  The neurotic beast is ugly no matter what it is.  That's basically the difference.  Would that people had eyes to see the difference.    

Edited by Taomeow
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

But if we can relax and let them arise and dissolve, then it is considered a way to purge old karmic seeds. 

 

 

Hi forestofemptiness,

 

Thank you for bring up karmic seeds...

 

I think some of my karmas are ripening now

 

What/why...?

 

Fruits come before seeds

 

I believe that I have lived fruitfully (positively/negatively/...) in the sun and rain

 

Now I will have my karmic seeds planted for regrowth

 

b1c3ffb787af7c6c2f1f3d8fdea2c54c.jpg

 

 

3 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

It seems to me that it's all nature, just what kind of nature you want. We could set up the conditions to cultivate health and happiness or misery and illness. I wouldn't say illness and suffering is unnatural, because it appears to me animals also get ill and suffer (maybe even plants--- I tend to be pro-plant sentience, but others may disagree). 

 

 

th?id=OIP.THUxjotuZd8nflkgf4msHgHaFA&pid=Api&P=0&w=252&h=171

 

 

- Anand

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

  The real beast is beautiful no matter what it is -- anger, love, compassion, sadness, rage, self-sacrifice, courage, fear.    

 

:wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Two people open an umbrella in a rainstorm.  One is averse to the rain and one is not, yet the visible action is the same;  the invisible difference is in the mind of the storm walker. 

 

 

 

Hi Jesse,

 

Sometimes I wait for rainstorms to come without an umbrella.

 

Why?

 

I like...

 

 

 

 

- Anand

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As per topic discussion:

 

Roseto effect

 

"Wolf attributed Rosetans' lower heart disease rate to lower stress. "'The community,' Wolf says, 'was very cohesive. There was no keeping up with the Joneses. Houses were very close together, and everyone lived more or less alike.'" Elders were revered and incorporated into community life. Housewives were respected, and fathers ran the families."

 

This is still visible in Japan and the Chinese still eat together reunited with relatives and close friends.

 

...and honour and respect the food prior eating it!

 

Why Japanese say Itadakimasu together before they eat?

 

An imbalanced/weakened/deficient Spleen/Earth Force = the mother of a thousand diseases. Same with an overactive Stomach due to excessive information processing (what we all learn from a young age at school).

 

No Spleen = no Qi. This is very serious stuff you don't want to mess up with.

 

Excessive Wood Force: technology & thinking. It weakens and damages the Earth Force.

 

I see people all the time in Brisbane, Australia eating junk/fast food while playing with their smartphones and laptops in the shopping centres. At home would be the same.

 

Hello Covid-19 = Humanity...time to wake up!

 

And more to come... this is only the beginning.

 

NOTE THIS INFO REALLY WELL. 

 

Carved it on your kitchen's wall if needed as a good reminder. ;)

 

 

 

Edited by Gerard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is becoming a very interesting thread :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2021 at 1:59 PM, Cleansox said:

 

Well, during the last few millennia, groups of people loosely speaking about the Dao have published a severe amount of books and images containing philosophical and practical guides for posterity. 

A small amount of that is translated into european languages, and some of the basic elements, like yin and yang, do seem to have made it into a vague common knowledge in western societies as well. 

 

 

 

Hi Cleansox,

 

Thank you for the fair contextual account.

 

 

10 hours ago, Toni said:

 

This is becoming a very interesting thread.

 

 

Hi Toni,

 

What is TCM?

 

 

-  Anand

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/05/2021 at 6:17 PM, Toni said:

This is becoming a very interesting thread :)

 

So interesting that you need to nourish both Spleen and Kidneys like a newborn child.

 

This textbook is one of the most important ones of the entire Taoist scientific catalogue:

 

Treatise on the Spleen & Stomach: A Translation of the Pi Wei Lun

 

Diet & emotions indeed as the two most important factors but also Lifestyle as per the Yellow Emperor's medical book.

 

There are also other reasons like sexual activity, materialism...they will age you fast.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gerard said:

 

So interesting that you need to nourish both Spleen and Kidneys like a newborn child.

 

This textbook is one of the most important ones of the entire Taoist scientific catalogue:

 

Treatise on the Spleen & Stomach: A Translation of the Pi Wei Lun

 

Diet & emotions indeed as the two most important factors but also Lifestyle as per the Yellow Emperor's medical book.

 

There are also other reasons like sexual activity, materialism...they will age you fast.

 

ok thanks, from now on i will never have sex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/17/2021 at 3:00 PM, Taomeow said:

I equate systemic memory and consciousness, in case I haven't said it a million times before.  The memory of who we really are in this-here life, of what we really lived through in this-here life, comes before the enlightened memory that "we are all one" and so on.  I don't believe the latter matters at all without the former.  Know thyself is the ticket...   but the actual "thyself" of this life for starters.  Skipping that is not going to unify the whole of reality. 

 

Can you clarify this a bit? Is this from a particular practice or system? When you say know thyself, do you mean thy-Self, in an Advaita sense, or perhaps insight into no-self? Is this an insight you have, and if so how would you characterize it in a statement?

Edited by stirling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/17/2021 at 3:00 PM, Taomeow said:

I equate systemic memory and consciousness, in case I haven't said it a million times before.  The memory of who we really are in this-here life, of what we really lived through in this-here life, comes before the enlightened memory that "we are all one" and so on.  I don't believe the latter matters at all without the former.  Know thyself is the ticket...   but the actual "thyself" of this life for starters.  Skipping that is not going to unify the whole of reality.  You can't leave your 6-year-old, your 6-moths-old, your 6-hours-old self out of that universal picture without a hole in that picture the size of the universe.  For that's what each of us is -- yes, at 6 hours of age too, and at 6 minutes of age, ditto.  

That really depends on the framework one subscribes to, doesn’t it? 

If the original (enlightened consciousness) is a memory, then it is a thing of the past. 
 

I would suggest that Consciousness pure is no a memory at all. It is an active presence that illuminates everything. 
 

Rather all these different embodied personalities, such as one’s 6-year personality, 6-month personality, and so on are memories, encrusted and stored in the mental apparatus. 
 

That which makes repetitive patterns rise again and again are not memories per se, imho. They are tendencies which are reinforced because of the lack of clarity of one’s true nature as unaffected, unattached pure consciousness — the attachment to these personalities.

 I would also suggest that absolutely no gap is left in the universe because these personalities are just projections of consciousness upon consciousness. Consciousness is ever complete, spotless. 

Edited by dwai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, dwai said:

That really depends on the framework one subscribes to, doesn’t it? 

If the original (enlightened consciousness) is a memory, then it is a thing of the past. 
 

I would suggest that Consciousness pure is no a memory at all. It is an active presence that illuminates everything. 
 

Rather all these different embodied personalities, such as one’s 6-year personality, 6-month personality, and so on are memories, encrusted and stored in the mental apparatus. 
 

That which makes repetitive patterns rise again and again are not memories per se, imho. They are tendencies which are reinforced because of the lack of clarity of one’s true nature as unaffected, unattached pure consciousness — the attachment to these personalities.

 I would also suggest that absolutely no gap is left in the universe because these personalities are just projections of consciousness upon consciousness. Consciousness is ever complete, spotless. 

 

Indeed it depends on the framework one subscribes to.  If I ever found myself attending a meeting of Hindu/Buddhists Anonymous, I'd be promptly kicked out.  Hi.  My name is Taomeow, and I'm a taoist. :rolleyes:

 

So I'll just leave it at that and let Laozi share his opinion instead:

 

Therefore the person should be viewed as a person.

The family should be viewed as a family.

The community should be viewed as a community.

The country should be viewed as a country.

And the world should be viewed as the world.*

 

You and those who share your approach always do the opposite -- and that opposite is not part of my tradition and also nowhere near my experience and falls afoul of my personal cognition.  My tradition maintains we live in the real world.  We are persons in this world who should be viewed as persons.  Our personalities are of interest as personalities, and are not made insignificant, nonexistent or inconsequential by the fact that some bigger-better whole is also real.  A glass of water is not a "projection" of some "more real" water.  When you are thirsty, you don't quench your thirst with some grand idea of water being an illusion, or of your thirst being a projection, or of you yourself not really existing.  Or do you?  I dunno.  I don't.  

 

Well, your thirst is memory of water nourishing life...  and if it wasn't so, you could easily quench your thirst and nourish your life with sand perhaps?  Or with gasoline?  Or with right words, right actions, black hat, white shoes, Cadillac?.. 

 

Your life's origin, in its turn, is memory of an unbroken lineage of ancestors, their actual existence in reality, their genes, their DNA, their jing.  Mind you "memory" is not equal to vague recollections in the head that are universally sloppily mistaken for what memory is.  Every step of the way I'm talking about memory as the only way any reality can exist.  Your molecules only stick together because they remember how. 

 

Your doorknob doesn't have the same memory of what brought it into existence built into what it is and so can't be equated to you under any circumstances.  A person is a person.  A doorknob is a doorknob.  An unbroken lineage all the way to the source is memory.  Let's capitalize for clarity.  Memory is the Way to the Source.  If you have this memory, the memory of all-the-way-to-the-source, you have consciousness.  The source itself is not consciousness.  You need to co-create consciousness with the source by forming a memory. 

 

A memory of how to come from the source and a memory of how to return to the source.  No memory of the way to the source, no consciousness. A doorknob is a doorknob.   It's not a projection of some unified consciousness.  It's real.  It's a real doorknob.  But its memory is short, and its consciousness is therefore limited to a few metallurgic and metal-working operations that brought it into existence.  A person is different.  Her personal memory is greater than that of the world, because it originates from the Source in an unbroken lineage.  So some persons are more conscious than some doorknobs because of that.  Persons who don't suffer from total personal amnesia.    

 

Now does it make a bit more sense when I say, for short, that "I equate memory with consciousness?"  Yes?  Great.  No?  Well, to each their own.        

 

*(TTC 54, Wing-tsit Chan, which I believe is the best translation into English in that it's the closest to the original, with translator's infusion into the text of his own ideas absolutely reduced to the minimum compared to others.)  

 

Edited by Taomeow
Typo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Can you clarify this a bit? Is this from a particular practice or system? When you say know thyself, do you mean thy-Self, in an Advaita sense, or perhaps insight into no-self? Is this an insight you have, and if so how would you characterize it in a statement?

 

See my response to Dwai -- 

and as for characterizing my view in a statement, it is a co-creation between taoism proper (minus all the foreign influences some schools have absorbed) and my own forays into taoist arts, sciences and practices.  The word "memory" is used here in the broad/genuine sense which is closest to the taoist concept of jing in the broad/genuine sense -- a pattern of origin.  Something that really happened to bring a live being into existence, beginning from the beginning of its living history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites