Hi Nik,
he's had an insight that won't go away. So there is something that had changed permanently within him that makes the day to day management possible.
Right. If I burn my hand on the stove, and truly see the reality of the stove, there is no discipline involved in not touching the hot stove again. Once I see it, it's done.
A person who has seen, without mistake, has 'seen' the insubstantiality of their thoughts will not get caught up in them in quite the same way ever again. They will have the equivalent of that quiet place that you might achieve in the 3 hours of daily meditation that you mentioned in an earlier thread.
I'm all in favor of this "pulling it up by the roots" method, in theory. So we can hopefully continue to discuss the details of getting there.
The more I discuss this with you the more I wonder whether my intellectual path has only been made possible by my own meditation practice - but that's for another thread!
Seems to fit here to me, but proceed in whatever direction interests you.
It is tough to swallow because we believe so much that the tree exists in and of itself. We believe in it so much that we think that with my thought experiment philosophy crosses a line into absurdity. But it is not absurd. It is as intellectually valid as the normal view.
We throw a rock in to a pond. Do the ripples that result exist? Yes and no.
There is no object called "ripple" that we can pick up and handle. The ripples aren't really matter, but energy expressing itself in matter. But then,
everything is energy expressing itself in matter. So, in a sense, nothing exists.
I'm not sure if this is what you mean.
If we can see this we have succesfully diagnosed our normal view of independent trees as a kind of belief.
"Tree" is a conceptual invention of the human mind. The concept creates an imaginary hard division that doesn't actually exist in reality.
Am I on the right track? Or?
If philosophy doesn't always bear the fruits of joy and serentity it is only because so few really philosophers really challenge themselves.
The vast majority of us are prisoners of a group consensus status quo mindset. We look around, see what others are doing, and assume that if everybody is doing or thinking XYZ, it must be generally right.
Anyway, I've spelled it out - I consider this the most fundamental and important philosophical question we can ask ourselves
Yes. As you suggest, we need to now backup, slow down, and start from the beginning, not the end.
Two perspectives are possible: either the tree exists in and of itself, or it is fleeting and insubstantial as a thought. These two perspectives are respectively realism and idealism - a fundamental dividing ground in philosophical thought.
Ah, this seems a good summary. Ok, everybody gets realism, so please teach us more about idealism.
Then there is the transcendental view - that both of these are plausible ways of viewing the tree, and that they in fact logically require each other in order to make sense. The solid realism of matter is only given meaning by its opposite partner - the dream stuff of thoughts and ideas.
This makes sense.
But, I question whether reality really needs to make sense.
Obviously it does sometimes for practical reasons.
But in the arena we are exploring, does reality need to make sense? Or is our attempt to make sense of reality a primary obstacle to us observing, experiencing and embracing reality, as it is. Does our focus on abstraction become a distraction, and a distortion? Can we explore reality without theories, analysis and conclusions?
But the moment they make an assumption as to whether the tree does or doesn't exist they actually fall into error. Not because they are wrong per se, but because they are forgetting that that there is an equally plausible alternative that they are failing to account for. Their error lies in nothing other than their partiality, in failing to see that their assumption is just one of two possible opinions.
So, you're saying it's not a black/white, either/or thing?
If we believe in our heart that the tree really exists we commit an intellectual error as grave as believing that that broken mirror will now curse our existence. And just as the person with the broken mirror will live in fear henceforward, afraid to cross roads, never knowing when the calamity will strike - so we all live in a superstitious fear of a so called 'independent world', and our precarious place within it.
Ah.... This is good, well said. I'll rewrite this in my own words, please tell me if I'm on the right track.
We see that the word "tree" is a convenient abstraction that artificially divides a unified reality. In reality, the event "tree" is actually so intimately involved with everything around it, that labeling it as a separate thing is really kind of a parlor trick.
So, are you saying that just as "tree" is an illusion of sorts, so is "me"?
And just as the superstitious person's beliefs are never disconfirmed - the death of their second cousin's grandmother four years later was, for them, 'caused' by the mirror - so is our selfhood ever confirmed by an elabarate explanation of events as being 'caused' by ourselves and others in a genius rationalisation called time and space.
Ok...
But if we could only 'see' how all of this suffering rests one fundamental philosophical error...
I love this getting to the heart of it process. Deal with the source of the problem, rather than the symptoms of the problem.
As philosophically minded people we are uniquely skilled in playing around with ideas, seeing things from other perspectives. But at some things we baulk. In these realistic times we dare not think that the solid world of trees might just also be a passing play of dream stuff, it seems too absurd.
True. And you're going to have to work harder to talk us out of it.
But if we are cowards on this point all our philosophising will never come to fruition.
And now we will deal with reality, and admit we are cowards. But, hopefully, cowards with a sense of humor.
Yes, I recognise this person in people I've met, particularly old clients. Their thinking is compulsive, repetitive, perseverative and it never gets them anywhere because it never falls on the one question it needs to fall on. Who is this 'me'? How i can be so sure that this 'me's exists?
A challenge here is that focusing excessively on "me" is exactly the disease they are suffering from.
And so, yes, they may be drawn to Jnana Yoga, as it suggests they continue to do what they already passionately want to do, spend their life focused on "me". But, if they are unable to follow the process through to the end, we've just made their ailment worse.
So, before we throw more fuel on the fire, we should perhaps gauge the chances of this actually putting the fire out.
Out of this world of trees and other objects, the objects that we believe in most of all us 'me'.
Right.
It is extremely hard to think about ourselves because we imagine that we are the ones doing the thinking - the very activity is self-reinforcing.
The divisive nature of thought can be seen in the expression "think about myself". There is the thinker, and there are the thoughts.
I'm thinking of saying something rude, but another part of my mind says no, that's bad. Another part of my mind chimes in, "but they deserve it". Lots of different little people running around inside our heads, arguing with each other.
We are divided against ourselves, and take it very personally. But it has nothing to do with us. It's just the divisive nature of thought doing it's thing.
We don't take the blood going around in our veins personally. We see it as simply a mechanical process. Our thoughts are just a mechanical process too.
In my own experience it was only when I started to question how I could be sure that 'trees' exist that I was able to see that all the things I normally consider as 'me' are as 'out there' as the trees are.
How did this intellectual understanding transform in to the kind of understanding that has a personal impact upon your life?
I know that people with CFS can benefit from meditation, i.e activities that quieten the thinking mind. The trouble with many people with CFS is getting them to consider that their difficulties are caused by anything other than physical illness.
Yes, I'm afraid so. My friend has grasped upon the label "chronic fatigue syndrome" because this term uses the authority of the medical establishment to declare the illness has nothing to do with psychology.
But of course, what the term "chronic fatigue syndrome" really means is...
"We haven't the slightest clue what is wrong with you, but we have to give our ignorance a fancy name, or we can't bill your insurance company."
If yes, I bow to his good sense, his willingness to come to the rescue, and suggest his posts to you.