Cogito

[Greg Goode]

At 10:48 AM 10/9/97 +0200, Charles Wikner wrote:
>Greg Goode <goode at DPW.COM> wrote:
>
>> This reminds me of Ramana's "I-thought."
>
>Reminds?  How does reminding operate?  Have you observed the associative
>patterns in the mind?

Of course.  I think that all mind patterns are associative.  Any other
kinds of relations are superimposed over these.

>
>> I'll admit I've always had
>> trouble even finding it, not to mention tracing it to its source.
>
>Throughout life, all experience is referred to a common point where
>it is broadly categorised as good, bad, or don't care, as it affects
>or interests that point. That point has a name: in your case, Greg Goode.
>The information that there is a blizzard at the South Pole is probably
>categorized as don't care, but to another centre of experience that is
>at the South Pole it may be a matter of life and death ...

[...stuff deleted...]


I know all this -- in fact, in grad school speaking of decision theory
and ethics, we used to remark how all decisions seemed to start lacking
force and import as the object of the decision becomes more remote from
the decider.  More remote in terms of time, space, familial/genetic distance,
probability of outcome, or any other relation.


>> Can someone tell me what it is?
>
>You -- you can't see it because you are identified with it.

By I-thought, it seems you really mean any thought that occurs while there
is identification.  Identification with ANYTHING entails ignorance.  The
infinite consciousness is what it is, it simply is.  Any identification
with anything else entails some sort of duality, ignorance.  And
this is just what Ramana meant.  When I asked this question to the list, I
was
just checking.  Just to see if the I-thought was something else, e.g.,
a thought where "I" is the OBJECT of the thought.  Like a "pot-thought" is
a thought of a pot.

>First there is aham (I), the pure feeling of existence, then there
>arises "other", which puts a limit upon aham -- that is the problem.
>The duality creates the space for the game to proceed -- the game is
>rather like a dog chasing its tail.

Yes, familiar with this.

>> A component of almost every other thought occurring to the person.
>
>Not only thought in the verbal sense, but including hopes, fears,
>desires, likes, dislikes, etc. etc. etc.  Have a look at what is
>happening in the mind.

And all this.


>The thoughts relate everything ELSE -- that's the problem -- to the
>body/mind complex, usually along the lines of good/bad, like/dislike,
>etc.  Have a look at a thought in the mind -- any thought, but start
>with thoughts having a strong emotional component -- and observe why
>you entertain it.  I do mean entertain: you give it so much attention
>that it feels quite at home.  To warrant such attention it must be very
>attractive.  What is its attraction?  What is attracted to it?  What is
>observing this whole process?

There's only one real observer, the unseen seer, which, seeing, allows
any identified entity to see.


>Sadananda recently posted an excellent article on the operation of the
>mind (Thinking process, 07 Oct 1997) -- if you are serious about vicaara,
>then these processes need to be directly observed, and then transcended.

They are!

>A caveat: I have not read Ramana, so interpreting it as vicaara may be
>jumping to a confusion.  In which case some kind soul will hopefully
>point out the error.

Actually, the way you explain the I-thought is very much the same as
Ramana's explanation!

>Great was the temptation to reply with a string of Brahmans, illusory
>appearances and so on, but fortunately there is choice :-)


The Brahmans/illusory-appearances explanation always works for me,
whereas the choice notion never works :-)

--Greg