Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: cognos!cognos!uunet.uu.net!garym@uunet.UU.NET (Gary Murphy)
Subject: Re: Heart of the matter...
References: <1991May16.181746.23861@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 17 May 91 19:53:11 GMT
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov
Organization: Cognos Inc., Ottawa, Canada
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Message-ID: <1991May17.195311.24711@nas.nasa.gov>
Lines: 173


On 16 May 91 18:17:46 GMT, johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) said:

JW> Hi, let us get to the heart of the matter. Let us say you are sitting
JW> quietly in your room, at ease, meditating. Your eyes are closed. Ocassionally,
JW> you hear a distant sound, maybe a bird, a car horn, whatever. You
JW> also sometimes feel your senses registering the chair or floor on
JW> which you are sitting. Then you notice your thoughts. They arise
JW> and pass away. All kinds of thoughts may arise. Some are linked and
JW> manifest in what seems to be chains or links, i.e. one thought leads
JW> to the next, and to another, and so on. Sometimes you have thoughts
JW> which you call memories, but still these too are thoughts. So memory itself
JW> is thought. There is no memory apart from thought. (Incidentally, if
JW> there is no memory apart from thought, then it is illogical to say
JW> thought arises from memory.)

While cleaning an old computer in preparation for resale, I tried the
following experiment in memory:  I removed all the keys and put them
in a vinegar solution to soak for a bit, and then, one by one, I took
each key and put it in what I 'though' should be it's place.  I'm no
touch-typist, but I do a lot of keystrokes in a day.  While many keys
were installed without trouble, I found I had a few which I could not
place.  I then tried typing the alphabet with one hand and found what
I thought to be the missing locations.  The final stage of my experiment
was most surprising: I began to type rapidly and immediately noticed
two sets of transposed keys (all this was done without turning the machine
on).

This suggest to me that we have at least two 'types' of memory which I will
call 'conscious' (fitting the keys one by one) and 'somatic' (my fingers
know more about the key locations than I do).  I know this same experience
occurs while playing a musical instrument: I cannot describe a guitar chord
half as easily as I can play one, and I can play the guitar much faster
than my conscious mind can follow.

In the works of Murdock, a psychological 'master' of the science of
memory, we get the impression that memory is somehow echoic (we tend to
make errors not in conceptual similarity but in similarity of _sound_)
which suggests that some part of memory is linked not to thought but
more directly to language (which is supported in the loss of memories
of our pre-language years).  Neural Network research, on the other hand,
identifies at least a potential for memories to be stored much like
holograms, distributed across the system and not being so much a thing
in themselves as a property of the topology.

Could you have these reversed?  Could thought be somehow a memory?

JW> So, as you sit there you are aware of various sensations and thoughts 
JW> that arise in your experience. Are you with me so far? Let us say for
JW> the sake of argument that it is very quiet and your senses become very
JW> still, perhaps you are deeply absorbed in your contemplation. This
JW> can happen. You decide to become curious about your thoughts, how they
JW> function, etc. Again, you notice that they arise and pass; they constantly
JW> change. You are quite aware of all this. You even notice that some are
JW> linked, etc. as I said above. But also some are not linked.

You will need to put them down before we can tell them apart ;-)

JW> Let us say, as you are watch your thoughts for some reason they slow
JW> down. It happens sometimes. You may even see a thought begin and end, and
JW> another begin and end etc. Now, for the purpose of analysis let us
JW> look, as though through a microscope at one brief span of time, say
JW> one or two seconds. Perhaps, in those two seconds four or five thoughts
JW> arise (I am just picking a number). Are you still with me? This is
JW> not far-fetched, I am talking of something we all experience, right?

I'm lost.  Where can you make the division between one 'thought' and
another?  To my subjective view, thought, like everything else in this
Universe, is a process, not a series of beads on a string.  How can
one be separated out?  If you have a technique for doing this, there
are hoards of connectionists out there who have AI programs needing
your wisdom!

JW> Now, in that interval with the four or five thoughts going by, I would
JW> like to ask you "Who are you?" In other words, who are you that is
JW> aware of those thoughts. If you say that you are those thoughts, that
JW> would be silly, since they all pass away in the next second (you obviously
JW> don't pass away, when the thoughts pass away).

Will I not pass with my thoughts?  I guess the jury is still out on that
one.  Why can I not be the one who had these thoughts?  The 'I' in this
is solely a differentiation from not-I, a necessary invention to appellate
the perceiver (a misleading concept perhaps, but one that occurs while still
in the womb).

JW> What I am interested to know is what is the nature of the one in you
JW> who knows the thoughts? If you say that he is himself just thought, I
JW> say, how can one thought be aware of another? Thoughts are objects
JW> perceived. How can one object perceive another? I say that what you
JW> are is not a thought at all. It is of an entirely different nature.

"The purpose of a fish trap is to catch fish,
 and when the fish are caught, the trap is forgotten.
 The purpose of a rabbit snare is to catch rabbits.
 When the rabbits are caught, the snare is forgotten.
 The purpose of words is to convey ideas.
 When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.
 Where can I find a man who has forgotten words?
 He is the one I would like to talk to."
   -Chuang Tzu

Is there perhaps a purpose to thought?

Perhaps I am not _my_own_ thought, but does this exclude me from
being a projection of some Mind?  Thoughts as projected as this Universe
we live in interact with ease (cf. Heisenberg's "Life is but a Dream")

JW> Why do I say this?:

JW> 1) Thoughts are many, you are singular

False and false, true and true ... Am I the same I when with friends
and when with family?  Am I the same as I was in 1965? Yes, but only
if we deal with the immutable I, and this then becomes fuzzy in
distinction with you (I&I).

JW> 2) Thoughts are objects, you are the knower of the objects (subject)
JW> 3) Thoughts are not conscious, but you are conscious
JW> 4) Even when all thoughts subside (strange as it may seem) you
JW>    are still conscious of the absence of thoughts

"Who would have known that my mind is intrinsically pure?
 Who would have that my mind is forever free from change?
 Who would have known it gives rise to this manifested world?
 Who would have known I would find that the Buddha is the
 light in my own mind?" -- Hui Neng (6th Patriarch)

JW> Does this interest you? Are you with me? So I ask what is the nature
JW> of the one in you that knows thought? What can you tell me about him (you)?
JW> I am not so interested in thoughts as I am you who knows thought.

JW> What can you tell me about him?

"the raft of discourse is like yesterday's dream, and you [must] cut
 off your old understanding bound up in the vines and serpents of
 words."  - Dogen

JW> Take care,

JW> johnw 


JW> P.S. I am studying under a fully enlightened sage in California. He is
JW>      a fully awakened master, who is in the state of Buddha himself.
JW>      I say this sincerely, from my own experience, of studying with
JW>      him for several years. His life and realization accords with
JW>      the enlightened masters of ancient times. Other students of
JW>      his have awakened to the truth, many more are doing so. This
JW>      is a sign of the genuineness of his realization. Only a realized
JW>      being can lead others to freedom. Whatever I may have learned and
JW>      expressed in these messages, is just an infintesimal drop I've
JW>      gleaned from the ocean of his wisdom.

"The truth is never taken
>From another.
One carries it always
By oneself."
          - Tetto Giko, 1369


One should always question one's masters.  Great he may be, but these
claims are a tad on the unlikely side.  Can you say why you believe
what you say?

Cheers.  (It's been fun! :-)

--
o| Gary Murphy                                                            |o
 |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
o| uunet!mitel!cunews!cognos!garym       garym%cognos.uucp@ccs.carlton.ca |o
 | Cognos Inc.      P.O. Box 9707 Ottawa K1G 3N3     (613) 738-1338 x5537 |
o| "There are many things which do not concern the process" - Joan of Arc |o

