--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > Yup. It's also *still identification*. In the > > Buddhist paradigm, the goal is to identify with > > *no* point of view or state of attention, but > > to transcend them all and identify with *nothing*. > > Not identifying with action means being no actor. > Not identifying with thought means being no thinker.
Or it could imply that the person doing this is a moodmaker. :-) > Still thoughts and actions continue. Not being identified with a > viewpoint, doesn't mean either there is no viewpoint, or that there > would have to be many viewpoints. This kind of analysis is of course > itself a viewpoint, but it doesn't say anything about the > identification with it. It doesn't therefore matter at all if the mind > holds only one or many viewpoints, if one is not identified with the > menatl activity. For the sake of a discussion, we have to give > viewpoints, both of us, but it doesn't say anything about the degree > of involvement in the mind. > > To bring the discussion to the level of one versus many viewpoints is > therefore a mistake, because it mistakes the number of viewpoints one > holds with the degree of ones identification. You could hold a number > of viewpoints, and still be involved with each one of them to some > degree. Your mind could have worked out a balance between them all, or > an aditional viewpoint which comprises the all.(like the grand theory > of unfied viewpoints.) > > It maybe a parctical exercise in Buddhism to switch between viewpoints > in oder to lose identification, but its just an exercise to understand > the nature of illusion. If states of consciousness (not attention) > occure only one at a time, or overlap or are mixed, is of course also > a matter of definition of 'states of consciousness'. For me this > doesn't really pose a problem. Any intellectual theory about states of > consciousness can only be a simplification, and the mind cannot hold > reality as it is. So what do all these viewpoints matter? One might ask, given your last sentence, why you keep suggesting that your point of view is "better" or "higher" and that mine is lesser? :-) One might also ask, as I have several times (without, I think, a response from you) why -- if you truly believe that the universe runs everything and that no one in it is really "doing" anything -- you keep suggesting that I change my behavior and/or my beliefs? If you honestly believe that the universe is doing it all, shouldn't you be taking these complaints directly to the universe instead of the "not doer?" :-) ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
