You are hereDr Shankar July
Dr Shankar July
|
Dr. Shankar's hard-hitting wisdom
Distinction between living moment & a thought cloud
Is Personalizing man's common Conditioning?
Was that question and that logic in my awareness while those words were coming out of my mouth? Or did the awareness of "doing/speaking" come slightly after the fact. It is the difference between knowing and un-knowing. Knowing must be some kind of a declaration. Not a real observed phenomenon.
|
||
Here's an interesting mission for anyone who might feel so inclined.
I don't personally know anyone who is profoundly deaf (born deaf and has never heard a sound since). I did have a couple of friends who were, a number of years ago. But I've lost touch with them.
If you happen to know someone who is deaf from birth, ask (via ASL or written note) him or her this question:
"when a word or thought surfaces in your mind, is it accompanied by sound?"
A variation of the above question might be:
"when you think, can you hear yourself think?"
Report your findings back to us here at NNH.
I'm sure some of us will be interested in your findings.
"Thought is SUBTLE sound that cannot be heard!" Dr. Shankar
Peter: If you happen to know someone who is deaf from birth, ask (via ASL or written note) him or her this question:
"when a word or thought surfaces in your mind, is it accompanied by sound?"
A variation of the above question might be:
"when you think, can you hear yourself think?"
Response Dr. Shankar: Man cannot hear the thought when he thinks, because the decibel of thought sound cannot be received or strike the ear drum. Thought is therefore subtle sound that cannot be heard.
www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org
Marcus Stegmaier
Be wary, marcus, of falling into a familiar trap.
I speak of the trap of... "I believe that x (i.e. thought)
is Y (i.e. sound) because Mr./Ms. (fill in the blank) has convinced me that it is so."
Folks like Ramana always encouraged you to conduct your own self-inquiry.
Not buy into the findings of someone else's inquiry.
What do you think Ramana would've said... if you both discussed the matter of self-inquiry and you stated "Dr. Shankar says that X is Y"?
Faith is someone else's attestations can be a slippery slope, my friend.
And it can be an effective diversion from participating in your own self-inquiry.
How do I know this?
Well, So-and-so said so, of course. :) (Sarcasm intentionally inserted here to make a point.)
Self-inquiry happens!
Peter: Be wary, marcus, of falling into a familiar trap.
I speak of the trap of... "I believe that x (i.e. thought)
is Y (i.e. sound) because Mr./Ms. (fill in the blank) has convinced me that it is so."
Response: Your post has been forwarded to Dr. Shankar. Therefore it was mentioned that it's a quote to let you know who is speaking to you in this particular response.
Peter: Folks like Ramana always encouraged you to conduct your own self-inquiry.
Response: Did you know Ramana?
Peter: Not buy into the findings of someone else's inquiry.
What do you think Ramana would've said... if you both discussed the matter of self-inquiry and you stated "Dr. Shankar says that X is Y"?
Response: I personally have contact to Dr. Shankar and not to Ramana, therefore quotes are authentic (and an understanding has happened to "me"). Hypothetical questions about what Ramana would have said are the trap of the ego.
Peter: Faith is someone else's attestations can be a slippery slope, my friend.
And it can be an effective diversion from participating in your own self-inquiry.
Response: Self-inquiry has happened to me as well as to Dr. Shankar. Self-inquiry is not brought about by the mind. Once it is clearly understood that all knowledge is illusory, the inquiry is over and sharing happens.
Peter: How do I know this?
Well, So-and-so said so, of course. :) (Sarcasm intentionally inserted here to make a point.)
Response: Knowledge happens to you as well as an understanding happens and is not brought about by the mind. All knowledge is illusory. Understand that it is not your intention, but that sarcasm happens too.
www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org
Marcus Stegmaier
Actually I`ve been also wondering about the sound of thinking, if it really could be a subtile sound as Dr Shankar is saying.
I tried to look for myself how it feels in the brain-pan when a word is arising in the mind e.g. the word "table".
It is like a dull resonance from the mouth to the brain.
But when the thing "table" reaches the eyes and the attention focuses something else, since the mind can keep only one object at the time, then the word "table" doesn`t show up and neither is the table "seen".
Neither do the unconscious thinking make any "sound".
The problem to me is that I imagine thoughts also being singular movements of the brain-synapses and then they would also be "light".
Or?
Anna
Dr. Shankar's responses to Anna:
Anna: I tried to look for myself how it feels in the brain-pan when a word is arising in the mind e.g. the word "table".
It is like a dull resonance from the mouth to the brain.
Response: Any word is a transformation of sound in the mind, and a word does not go from mouth to the brain. Brain too is a thought as is the body.
Anna: But when the thing "table" reaches the eyes and the attention focuses something else, since the mind can keep only one object at the time, then the word "table" doesn`t show up and neither is the table "seen".
Response: Only light rays enter the pupil in the eye and not the table. The table is a thought in the mind. When the thought is absent so is the object.
Anna: Neither do the unconscious thinking make any "sound".
Response: There is no such thing as unconscious or conscious thinking. Thinking happens spontaneously, uncontrollably and unpredictably and later man is conscious of it, just as he is conscious of an action only after it has happened.
Anna: The problem to me is that I imagine thoughts also being singular movements of the brain-synapses and then they would also be "light".
Response: Brain synapses too are thoughts. Thoughts are sound. Sound is light.
www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org
Marcus Stegmaier
Many thanks to Dr.Shankar for his answers!
One of them is now arousing an other question:
If the eye is illusory, as the whole body, how can light rays enter an illusory pupil?
Thank you.
Anna
Dr. Shankar responds to Anna.
Anna: If the eye is illusory, as the whole body, how can light rays enter an illusory pupil?
Response: Light can enter only an illusory pupil and not a real pupil. Light will not be able to pass through real pupil if pupil were real. Real is only pure light and light is a reflection of it and cannot pass through it, for light is a reflection of pure light and not separate from it.
www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org
Marcus Stegmaier
Thank you for the respons!
So we could say that there is pure light, i.e.without any particles, being those already a reflection of light.
This pure light is beginingless, endless, unmoving, unchanging, pure energy.
From this pure energy a movement happens, i.e.reflected light.
This reflection strikes the pupil where the sensation takes place.
The pupil is an illusory reflection of the reflected light.
So reflected light, being itself a reflection of pure light is illusory too.
But how can the real reflect the illusory?
All these illusory reflections are endlessly changing.
Pure energy is also endlessly moving the reflected light so that it reflects all forms also endlessly changing.
The pupil is a reflection struck by an other reflecton, i.e. the reflected light.
So all is a play of reflections but how can we understand that, being ourselves a part of that play?
Thank you.
Anna
Dr. Shankar responds to Anna.
This reflection strikes the pupil where the sensation takes place.
Response: Light rays enter the pupil and not strike it.
So reflected light, being itself a reflection of pure light is illusory too. But how can the real reflect the illusory?
Response: The real does not reflect THE illusory it reflects AS the illusory.
All these illusory reflections are endlessly changing. Pure energy is also endlessly moving the reflected light so that it reflects all forms also endlessly changing.
Response: Energy does not move reflected light for reflected light is energy.
The pupil is a reflection struck by an other reflecton, i.e. the reflected light.
Response:Reflections are not separate to strike each other. That they do is an auditory illusion of sound in the intellect in the mind.
So all is a play of reflections but how can we understand that, being ourselves a part of that play?
Response:'we' i.e. ego, which is part of the play, does not understand in the intellect which is sound that appears as the mind. Understanding happens in intelligence which is light that is life.
www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org
Marcus Stegmaier
Thank you Dr. Shankar for your responses and thank you Marcus for your help!
Anna
Thank you Richard for this new interview with Dr Shankar!
It is always such a joy and fun to me listening to his words. He is so sharp and clear and everything he says is so obvious to me.
How can we believe that anybody is doing, thinking etc. in life! If we carfully observe what is happening all the time we only see that it is a delay in the mind. When we become aware of something, it has already happened. All we can do is watching the movement and the flow of life each moment.
I like Dr Shankara`s explanation of non-duality.
He has also such a humour and loving engagement and care.
Thank you Dr Shankar for your generosity in giving this interview!
Anna
This is the first time, Richard, that I've seen you lump two different interviews with the same person... which occurred on two different dates.. into one posting.
I don't think that it is a particularly helpful practice to employ.
Towards focused commentary, that is.
Will you be doing this for the other interviewees as well?
Attaching a more current interview to their most recent one?
The difference between a "thought-cloud" and thinking is what? Dr. Shankar?....
www.moralempowerment.com
Wisdompoint: The difference between a "thought-cloud" and thinking is what? Dr. Shankar?....
Dr. Shankar's response: The difference if any, would be thought cloud alias thinking.
www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org
Marcus Stegmaier
Dr. Shankar's response: The difference if any, would be thought cloud alias thinking.
Response: Lumping things together as "illusion"? Good. It is just that the difference between "illusion" and "reality" actually is not?
Thinking creates, prescribes, and works the area of principle, a "thought cloud" happens when there is no thinker that is account-able for non-duality.
And beyond that, a "thought cloud" obscures the light, whereas thinking creates out of light.
We need to answer the question "thought cloud" for who? Does the witness suffer from a "thought cloud"? The soul? The ego? The mind? Who needs to be informed about a "thought cloud"?
It is better to meet the account-ability to think and un-think of course.
Thank you for providing the only authentic example of un-thinking here.
www.moralempowerment.com
Dr. Shankar responds to Wisdompoint:
Wisdompoint: Lumping things together as "illusion"? Good. It is just that the difference between "illusion" and "reality" actually is not?
Response: The difference between illusion and reality cannot be known for reality cannot be known or be the known. Only the illusory can be known and understood to be illusory and NOT real.
Wisdompoint: Thinking creates, prescribes, and works the area of principle, a "thought cloud" happens when there is no thinker that is account-able for non-duality.
Response: A thought cloud means a collection of thoughts that thinking brings about when it creates, prescribes and works the area of principle. A thinker is therefore accountable for the thought cloud. Thinking and therefore thought cloud happens. It happens as an auditory illusion of sound.
Wisdompoint: And beyond that, a "thought cloud" obscures the light, whereas thinking creates out of light.
Response: Thinking leads to thought cloud, therefore thinking would and does obscure light i.e clarity.
Wisdompoint: We need to answer the question "thought cloud" for who? Does the witness suffer from a "thought cloud"? The soul? The ego? The mind? Who needs to be informed about a "thought cloud"?
Response: To the who who feels the need for an answer which is the ego. The ego needs to be informed about the thought cloud to manifest the illusory world as real to the ego. The word 'suffer' is illusory to the witness so the witness does not suffer, only the ego suffers for the word suffer is real to the ego.
Wisdompoint: It is better to meet the account-ability to think and un-think of course.
Response: The moment and time is invisible in life, so how could anyone be acccountable and for what?
Wisdompoint: Thank you for providing the only authentic example of un-thinking here.
Response: Un-thinking is a thought too which amounts to thinking. Man cannot unthink the thought which happens to him, so please do not thank for giving an example of unthinking for it has not been given or could ever be given.
If listening to these responses happens to you and an understanding which point that man is not the doer, speaker and the thinker happens to you, it is good, if not, what could man do, and could he, for he has not done anything before at all? Therefore there is no need to thank for anything that appears to be given by man, be grateful to life for it happens every moment which is invisible to man.
www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org
Marcus Stegmaier
Dr. Shankar points out that thought is a word, a vibration of sound, and that mind is sound. I have never heard this put quite in this way before, and it is very helpful to me. When the mind is perceived by the light of life as sound, there is a sense of equanimity, a sense of not needing to get tangled up and reactive to the sounds of thought.
Dr. Shankar also points out that man believes his thinking is seeing. Thinking is thinking, it is not seeing. When thinking is erroneously equated with seeing, there is blindness that is believed to be vision.
Dr. Shankar's communication in this video helps me to recognize this blindness of mind and to therefore no longer be deluded by it. Thank you.
The man certainly exudes certainty, I'll say.
Which is an admirable quality for those of us who value certainty.
But for those of us who have formed an intimate and welcoming relationship with uncertainty...
well, his certainty is not as admirable.
We are attracted to the qualities of another, which we value for ourselves.
Peter:
The man certainly exudes certainty, I'll say.
Which is an admirable quality for those of us who value certainty.
But for those of us who have formed an intimate and welcoming relationship with uncertainty...well, his certainty is not as admirable.
We are attracted to the qualities of another, which we value for ourselves.
Response:Quote Dr. Shankar: "The moment is certain as much as uncertainty is certain, albeit illusory."
www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org
Marcus Stegmaier
It is can be revealing to pay attention to HOW a man communicates what he is communicating, Marcus, and not just WHAT he is communicating.
Here's a pseudo-koan, just for fun:
"what space must I be in to tell someone 'you must understand' and 'listen to me and you'll understand'"?
A recollection of how some parents speak to their children might be helpful in identifying that space.
You can also find a hint, of what that space may be, in his discussion of how Richard handles his interviews, and how he should handle them in the future.
How we say what we say... can reveal as much or more about us... as what we say.
Love and Compassion is not social formality!
Peter: It is revealing to pay attention to HOW a man communicates what he is communicating, Marcus, and not just WHAT he is communicating.
Response: It is revealing to pay attention how communication happens to man and understand that communicating is happening to him that conveys man is not the doer, speaker or thinker.
Peter: Here's a pseudo-koan, just for fun: "what space must I be in to tell someone 'you must understand' and 'listen to me and you'll understand'"?
Response: To someone who has understood that man is not the thinker, speaker and doer "must" is not an insistence, "must" means: if understanding happens. Likewise "listen" means: if listening happens. He patiently watches and does not insist.
Peter: A recollection of how some parents speak to their children might be helpful in identifying that space. You can also find a hint, of what that space may be, in his discussion of how Richard handles his interviews, and how he should handle them in the future.
Response: Not how Richard "should" as an act but how Richard "would" if understanding happens to him.
Peter: How we say what we say... can reveal as much or or about us... as what we say.
Response: If understanding happens that man speaks as a result of evolution and sophistication and life makes speaking happen and man does not make speaking happen, speaking would reveal wisdom for speaking is a miracle.
Humanity is in such a deep sleep! It is a spiritual belief that the master has to be calm and nice to everybody - this is taken for love and compassion. However, in order to awaken man out of his slumber life makes the real Master shout "Man needs to understand!" which does not mean that anyone could make anybody listen, for man is not the doer. A man who just hears "should's" and "should-not's" and takes them to be real is not yet prepared (by life) to listen to a real Master.
Quote Dr. Shankar: “Love and Compassion is not social formality.”
www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org
Marcus Stegmaier
"Not how Richard 'should' as an act but how Richard 'would' if understanding happens to him".
You're being inaccurate here, Marcus. But I guess inaccuracy is just happening, and that you had nothing to do with its creation.
33 minutes into the conversation, Dr. Shankar begins to inform Richard that if he experienced a "qualitative change", he "should ask" certain questions of his interviewees. He also cites what some of those questions should be.
Feel free to review that specific part of the videotape.
He then adds, of course, that he doesn't think that Richard has experienced that qualitative change.
*****
"It is a spiritual belief that the master has to be calm and nice to everybody - this is taken for love and compassion."
It may be a belief, Marcus, but it is not one that I embrace.
The fact that I note Dr. Shankar possesses a strongly paternalistic manner in his communication of his message... is not a comment about not being "nice and calm".
It is simply a noting that he is very paternalistic in his communications efforts.
And a paternalistic mindset is one that often comes from the space of "I believe that I can see something more clearly than you can."
Or as Dr. Shankar said, "listen to me and you'll understand."
Paternalism is one of the ego's favorite playground, I've found.
But then again, and if you enjoy being paternalistic yourself, your mileage will probably vary with this view.
*****
Lastly, Marcus, and with regard to this comment of yours:
"However, in order to awaken man out of his slumber life makes the real Master shout 'Man needs to understand!'"
I know a lot of parents who feel the same way about their children and resort to shouting to them as well.
It's a common paternalistic point of view.
But here's a little secret that I learned from being a dad these past 11 years:
they're more apt to listen closely and understand you, if you whisper your communications to them instead of shouting them.
Hasn't that been your experience, too, as a parent?
Authoritarianism only attracts those who have been weaned to like the taste of authoritarian milk.
To understand authoritarianism as illusory needs to happen to man!!!
Peter: Or as Dr. Shankar said, "listen to me and you'll understand."
Response: Dr. Shankar said: "listen to me and you'll understand" which means: If listening happens to Richard understanding could happen. There are no non-dual words that could communicate. Understanding of word as illusory reveals duality to be illusory. Only the illusory works, because the real that works is illusory and not real.
Peter: I know a lot of parents who feel the same way about their children and resort to shouting to them as well. It's a common paternalistic point of view.
Response: Shouting happens to parents, parents do not "resort" to shouting as an act by choice or will!
Peter: But here's a little secret that I learned from being a dad these past 11 years: they're more apt to listen closely and understand you, if you whisper your communications to them instead of shouting them.
Response: Whispering too happens to man just as obedience happens to children!!! As long as there is an expectation that they should listen and not the patience to wait until listening happens to them, there will be no qualitative shift in communication between parents and children. Do the children understand that man is not the doer,speaker and thinker?
Peter: Hasn't that been your experience, too, as a parent?
Response: Sometimes children listen if shouting happens, sometimes if whispering happens. In none of the cases there could be a decision about how to "make" them listen. The willingness to listen is a miracle as is the way of communication which happens. The clear understanding that to expect them to listen is illusory is more important than the tone of voice in a certain situation which could never be controlled by the mind.
Man is deceived by the tone of voice and beliefs that it is love not to shout at all! "Love and Compassion is not social formality!" means: love and compassion is the understanding that expectations are illusory and not real! Love and compassion have not necessarily to do with the tone of voice.
Peter: Authoritarianism only attracts those who have been weaned to like the taste of authoritarian milk.
Response: Only a mind which beliefs in authority could ever project "authoritarianism" on someone else. The understanding that man is not the doer will reveal that "authoritarianism" is illusory. Therefore it was written: "A man who just hears "should's" and "should-not's" and takes them to be real is not yet prepared (by life) to listen to a real Master."
To understand authoritarianism as illusory needs to happen to man!!! Therefore a real master will most certainly trigger this basic misconception of the ego - not because the master wants it to happen, but because it is meant to happen.
www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org
Marcus Stegmaier
In Dr.Shankar's case the 'how' of what he says reveals a person who actually cares deeply about the understanding and awakening of the one he speaks to. That involves 'tough love'.
Oh, sorry, it is 'Peter'....Well, I leave this post anyway.
www.moralempowerment.com
I totally agree with you Andreas about the "how" a person is behaving vs our expectations.
Sometimes we are caught in the apparences which don`t correspond to our idea of how it should be.
I remember myself reacting first time I listened to Dr Shankar, I think it was on "Conscious TV". It was the same sudden yet fleeting reaction as when I first time listened to a Nisargadatta talk.
When the understanding of the words and of the person`s way of expressing them took place then even appreciation of this person`s loving care happened too.
Dr. Shankar never spoke about "tough love"!
Quote Dr. Shankar (in the video) "I just love, because Love is my nature."
Andreas: In Dr.Shankar's case the 'how' of what he says reveals a person who actually cares deeply about the understanding and awakening of the one he speaks to. That involves 'tough love'.
Response: In Andreas' case the how of perceiving what Dr. Shankar says reveals an illusory person who actually interprets all understanding about awakening according to his own beliefs, for example "though love". Understand how speaking happens, it is explained in the video, and the notion of a real speaker will subside, if it happens to you.
www.evolutionofmind.org
www.acadun.com
Marcus Stegmaier
Wisdompoint speaks about "tough love". Whoever said that Dr.Shankar speaks about "tough love"?
And in the case of Marcus everything is an illusion EXCEPT his person, HIS reasoning (Marcus does not understand how to think yet, it may come though), HIS "Absolute Understanding", that qualifies everything else as "belief" and therefore as subject to his dispensations of Absolute Understanding and Discrimination.
Did it ever occur to him that others may find his dispensations to be petty platitudes of non-dualistic reasoning?
I know Marcus tries to herd everything and everyone into his "understanding" of Absolute Understanding, but in the end - it is not about that, Marcus. The understanding of Marcus is not Absolute Understanding, but the relative understanding of Marcus "thinking" it is "Absolute Understanding".
There is a difference Marcus. Do you realize that?
www.moralempowerment.com
The mind interprets wisdom.
Andreas: And in the case of Marcus everything is an illusion EXCEPT his person...
Response: It was clearly explained that ILLUSORY words point to their own illusoriness. Marcus as everything else is illusory too. An enlightened being is light which appears as a man with clear understanding that the mind, the world and man are illusory and not real. A man is light which appears as a man with the belief that the mind, the world and man are real and that man is the doer, speaker and thinker. This is the illusory difference between the enlightened one and a man. However, both are illusory of course.
www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org
Marcus Stegmaier
Not thinking yet, just reasoning....
www.moralempowerment.com
I'll let Marcus correct your perceptions of what you believe Dr. Shankar's message is. He's much more capable and vested in it than I am.
I will add this, however.
I never met an advocate of "tough love"...yourself included... who didn't also believe that they cared deeply about the person that they were loving toughly.
No surprises here.
Marcus does not correct, for correction is illusory.
Peter: I'll let Marcus correct your perceptions of what you believe Dr. Shankar's message is.
Response: Nothing could be corrected and nothing needs to be corrected. Everything transforms itself as illusory and every belief is precisely as it is meant to be. If beliefs get explained to be illusory and it is understood, the mind interprets it as "correction" whereas both is just included in the singular movement of life. Cause and effect, false beliefs and corrected beliefs only exist as illusory thoughts in the mind.
www.acadun.com
www.evoltionofmind.org
Marcus Stegmaier
I am so glad that we can at least make a distinction between "belief" and "truth", even if we have no inkling on what basis we think that.
Your statement about "tough love" seems to be based on experience? Or is it a judgment of understanding something that other don't, like AAU - the "Absolute" maybe? In that case 'Marcus' will gather you into his fold - don't worry.;)
www.moralempowerment.com
Real truth is not a thought.
Andreas: I am so glad that we can at least make a distinction between "belief" and "truth", even if we have no inkling on what basis we think that.
Response: The mind makes a distinction between "belief" and "truth", but it is illusory. The "truth" which the mind believes in is also just another belief. Truth is the understanding that beliefs are illusory. Real truth is not a thought.
www.evolutionofmind.org
www.acadun.com
Marcus Stegmaier
Dr Shankar back again, what a wonderful surprise! Thank you so much Richard.
I loved to listen to this conversation and I love listening to his words and what they are pointing to.
To me this is such a deep wisdom!
I hope he can be back on NNH more times.
Love, Anna
Wonderful! A THINKER, who un-thinks...the shortest distance of the number ZERO, which has been conceived of in India, nowhere else in the world.
He also holds us account-able for the musings of the idle-mind of relative understanding.
This is so rare and precious! I want to hug his rupa right now!
www.moralempowerment.com
Andreas: He also holds us account-able for the musings of the idle-mind of relative understanding.
Response: Dr. Shankar does not hold anyone for accountable!
www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org
Marcus Stegmaier
What is straight innately holds everything account-able that is not straight.
Non-duality innately holds everything account-able that is dual
The one who thinks innately holds every one account-able who does not.
This video is a master example of account-ability for thinking and un-thinking and the integration via speech coming from Bindu and Nada.
www.moralempowerment.com
Non-duality does not hold anything accountable for it is illusory.
Andreas: What is straight innately holds everything account-able that is not straight.
Response: Only to man who thinks he is doer and who thinks straight is real.
Andreas: Non-duality innately holds everything account-able that is dual
Response: Accountable is illusory. Non-duality does not hold anything accountable for it is illusory.
Andreas: The one who thinks innately holds every one account-able who does not.
Response: The one to whom thinking happens and believes thinking is real holds every one accountable.
Andreas: This video is a master example of account-ability for thinking and un-thinking and the integration via speech coming from Bindu and Nada.
Response: It would be to one who thinks that he can think and un-think and that thinking and unthinking is real. Not to one whom a realization has happened that thinking is illusory and to such a one the question of unthinking does not arise.
www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org
Marcus Stegmaier
Marcus: Not to one whom a realization has happened that thinking is illusory and to such a one the question of unthinking does not arise.
Response: Yet he does it, because he has a persona (sound) and plays his role steadfastly, as the video proves, mysterious it may be. There is no "illusion" necessary...
www.moralempowerment.com
"Roles and persona" could not be proven to be real.
Andreas: Yet he does it, because he has a persona (sound) and plays his role steadfastly, as the video proves, mysterious it may be. There is no "illusion" necessary...
Response: Only to a conditioned mind roles appear to be played by a doer. This is the illusion.
www.evolutionofmind.org
www.acadun.com
Marcus Stegmaier
HUBRIS
Marcus has been playing his role very well in this forum WITH his mind, although he still needs to learn how to think, instead of reasoning...
He desperately tries to un-think himself as Marcus and think himself as an illusion (with a picture of a face, intentions, perceptions, volition); but first he has to learn how to think before he can effectively un-think his persona, or create illusions.
Before we can be silent we have to be a voice.
www.moralempowerment.com
Andreas: HUBRIS
Response: The hubris of the mind is to believe that an individual could think, speak and do something real by will and choice. Hubris is the natural function of the mind and indicates an incomplete, yet not wrong, understanding of life.
Andreas: Marcus has been playing his role very well in this forum WITH his mind, although he still needs to learn how to think, instead of reasoning...
Response: The conditioned mind believes to be the thinker. Therefore it projects this false impression on everything which happens in thought form. Any name, role, learning, thinking and reasoning is an illusion, because man did not make the mind, the mind has evolved in man, not as a means to conduct life but only to reflect a drama of apparent individuals being the doer.
Andreas: He desperately ...
Response: The mind projects its own desperation on others.
Andreas: tries...
Response: Again, the false sense of doership gets projected on illusory thoughts.
Andreas: to un-think...
Response: Thinking is an auditary illusion of sound as is un-thinking.
Andreas: himself as Marcus
Response: An enlightened being is light which appears a man with clear understanding that the mind is illusory and not real. Yet the conditioned mind projects its own conditioning on the enlightened and gets the impression that the enlightened thinks, speaks and does.
Andreas: and think himself as an illusion...
Response: Thinking that the ego is an illusion is a deception, it is not understanding. Understanding as wisdom is independent from knowledge. The enlightened understands the illusion as illusory without thinking "It's just an illusion." Such a sentence also is understood to be illusory sound only.
Andreas: (with a picture of a face, intentions, perceptions, volition);...
Response: Eyes don't see faces but only perceive reflected light. The mind thinks, as an auditary illusion of sound, faces, intentions, perceptions, volition. Therefore the world is a world of thoughts and not an actuality in life. The ego believes to see whereas it thinks the world.
Andreas: but first he has to learn...
Response: Learning is illusory. Everything happens as a projection of life which further evolves and sophisticates itself spontaneously, unpredictably and uncontrollably without any control of the mind. The mind is a reflection of life as sound and the mind does not conduct life.
Andreas: how to think...
Response: Thinking happens. "How?" is a thought too.
Andreas: before he can effectively...
Response: Life is neither effective nor ineffective but only appears to the mind which compares illusory perceptions with illusory ideals.
Andreas: un-think his persona...
Response: Persona is sound and therefore illusory. Nothing could be un-thought for nothing exists as a reality.
Andreas: or create illusions.
Response: There is only one illusion which appears as many, and it is a reflection and not a creation which would implicate that it is real. The real reflects itself as the illusory.
Andreas: Before we can be silent we have to be a voice.
Response: The "we" is sound and therefore could never be silent. Time is a thought too and illusory.
www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org
Marcus Stegmaier