It is (and must
be) occurring on a huge scale for the
thinking of its citizens to be so
subjugated and for all reasoning to be
extinguished and replaced by paranoia
without even a comment!
The cause is of
course a chemical imbalance.
A chemical
imbalance in the brains of its citizens on
a vast scale.
A chemical
imbalance Induced by the propaganda of Big
Pharma and the APA who have bribed its
entire population into wolfing down toxic
medications that do not work for illnesses
that do not exist, in order to make money.
The treatment??
I leave with
you..
:)
Enough for now!
:)
Tboni
______________________________________
Dan Berkow
To say
"everything already is enlightened" is to
say "there is nothing that is not who I
am" which is to say "nothing is being said
that isn't already what is so."
You raise the
notion of "representation." Has anything
ever really been represented? Or is it
that we suspend disbelief, so to speak. We
allow ourselves to be conned, or
participate in conning ourselves, in other
words. That way, we can attach emotions to
representations, formulate a sense of time
and personal continuity (of
representations we take as self).
When I look at
representation, whether that be through
word, image, or memory (even memory of
what took place one millisecond ago), that
representation is claiming to be able to
formulate something (whether that be an
emotional reaction, an image, a sensory
memory) that can "stand in" for what was,
but is not now.
And yet, one has
to acknowledge, if being clear, that the
only actual sensing occurring is "now."
The
"representation" actually is a present
sensing, and so is fluctuating, and so
isn't really able to "capture" what is not
present.
So, to me, it's
not a matter of being able to give your
attention to something for a long time. In
fact, the sense of time passing and how
long something is taking, is shown to be
imagined (although a powerful aspect of
our imagining process, a very convincing
aspect of it).
If I look at the
common-sense notion of duration, of
passage of time, I see that I'm
constructing it through how I represent
events - and we just said that
representation (as commonly understood) is
not really possible, is not happening (as
it is taken to be, through common-sense
ways of speaking, remembering, relating -
all based on consensus agreements about
representation - including culture,
including talking through this list,
including "buddha", spirituality; "seeing"
etc.).
You mention
"being in love" - by which I think you may
mean something like "the love which is
engaging fully as present" -- in which
case, yes, I agree. A lot of times people
who say they are in love are obsessing
about someone, thinking about them often,
feeling that they are very important to be
close to - in other words, "being in love"
as commonly understood is a process
through which thought, memory, and emotion
get obsessively intertwined around an
object (a beloved person) who represents a
series of experiences that are desired
(feeling close, feeling attracted,
enjoying touching and being touched by,
enjoying the feeling of sharing) ... which
psychologically are opposed to other
experiences that are not wanted (feeling
distant, feeling repulsed, disliking the
sensation of touching or being touched by,
feeling pain predominantly involved rather
than pleasure, etc.).
Now, it seems
odd to me, and yet true, that simply being
present (which in fact is all that is)
seems to be what people (in terms of the
common-sense understanding existing as a
person) want to avoid. People seem to
want, first of all, to exist as a located
self, which has experiences of its own,
which continues over time, which can get
what it wants for itself (whether that be
the feeling of being in love, or sex, or
enlightenment, or status, or power, or
recognition, etc.) and to avoid what it
doesn't want for itself (feeling lonely,
rejected, being ill, hurting, experiencing
pain, being ignorant, not being
recognized, being powerless, etc.).
So, getting back
to "people who are practicing seriously" -
what are they doing? They are assuming
they continue as centers that hold a sense
of being aware of themselves, that this
center is continuing a located existence
over time (and so can engage in
"practice";) that they are aware of a
personal mind that belongs to them and
which is separate from someone else's mind
(e.g., "I am now attending to my present
experience and staying with it" - whereas
someone else who is sitting to my left is
fidgeting, not paying good attention,
etc.)
In this sense,
"practicing" is a way to continue the
common-sense identification with a
location for a personal existence, a
belief in a personal mind that is one's
possession, so to speak, that one has
volition as a center (e.g., I can pay
attention well or poorly, I can commit to
what my teacher wants me to commit to, or
reject it) and so on.
If the
assumption of personal existence is
undermined, if assumptions about existing
as a separated mind or awareness is
undermined, what happens to practice, to
religion, to a spiritual path?В
Nothing really.
One is free to
continue on with whatever drama seems to
be unfolding as one's life - whether that
be involvement in a spiritual path, or
working as a banker, or living homeless on
the street and having to go through
dumpsters to find food to survive to the
next day ...
Indeed, it's not
just that "one is free to continue" it's
that one sees that the sense of
continuity, the sense of representation
(e.g., I exist as a human being who is
sitting in a zendo, or going through a
dumpster), is arising and sort of weaving
itself together as a construction,
non-volitionally, choicelessly, already
fully present as is without division (from
anything else that is choicelessly
present).
The sense of
"here" where I am existing and
experiencing and "there" where I am not
existing and experience, is seen to be as
much a cognitive construction as any other
aspect of representation.
- Dan