leonardcohenforum.com

Hey, thanks for that answer, daka. It's exactly what I wanted to know.


~ Lizzy

What we think is less than what we know. What we know is less than what we love; what we love is so much less than what there is. And to that precise extent we are so much less than what we are.

in what way is the first sentence true? The sheer volume of thought vs. the sheer volume of knowledge generated by humans - obviously thought is bigger than knowledge. Is it about importance? Is thought less important than knowledge? Doesn't thought necessarily predate knowledge? How else can we get knowledge? Is it a question of worth?

The next sentence feels right, but the last one is plain silly to me right now. You liked it when your brain was impaired, J, or at least thought it worth memorizing. does it still hold for you? I welcome you to help me change my mind.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
you mean this as if the newborn is speaking?

Hi Manna ~

My take on the first sentence is that thought doesn't encompass the entirety of our body of knowledge. There are things we know viscerally and intuitively and sensorily and [would "spiritually" qualify here or is it already inclusive?] and generationally [DNA?], that we don't actually think about or don't require the thought process... the mind. The last one says to me that we limit ourselves with our minds and that our beingness is so much greater.

It probably means more to me than those things, too, but for the moment, it's what I have time to express.


~ Lizzy

your potential isn't what you are, what you are is what you are.
I also don't include things like the "learning" done by my immune system on how to deal with Chicken pox the spring that I was 7, as part of what I know - my knowledge. Evolution could be called learning too, if you use the abstraction of the word learn. But the words evolution and ill are already more precise words for what happens.

Manna wrote:

What we think is less than what we know. What we know is less than what we love; what we love is so much less than what there is. And to that precise extent we are so much less than what we are.

in what way is the first sentence true?

What would you be without your thoughts?

brain dead.

Manna wrote:your potential isn't what you are, what you are is what you are.

Who said anything about potential?

Manna wrote:brain dead.

Ha ha Is that what happens during orgasm? when you are not sitting on the ottoman talking to your mother? Would you be brain dead without that thought?

Are you your thoughts?

lazariuk wrote:

Manna wrote:your potential isn't what you are, what you are is what you are.

Who said anything about potential?

Someone said something about being more than you are. I'm looking for a way for it to not be silly. The fact that many of my teachers told me I could be more if I worked to my potential came to mind. So I said potential.

lazariuk wrote:

Manna wrote:brain dead.

Ha ha Is that what happens during orgasm? when you are not sitting on the ottoman talking to your mother?

Who said there weren't thoughts during orgasm?

lazariuk wrote:Are you your thoughts?

my thoughts are me, just like my arm is.
orgasm isn't death, it's just a little bit of death, like my thoughts are little bit of me.

What we think is less than what we know.

In one of our meditation practices there is the expression "exhausted by our elaborations" Most of the real kernels of wisdom knowledge are described as extremely simple, quite obvious, almost hidden by the processes of unnecessarily complex and convoluted conceptualizations.

There is a famous American Buddhist psychotherapist, I think his name is Mark Levine. he states that we all have a meta-addiction, and this addiction is to our mind, (to our mental processes, habitual, ingrained, programmed like a computer, and potentially very problematic).

Manna, when you said

'Brain Dead'

above, I don't believe it. There is a meditation that has a long complicated name: the 'yoga of the absorption of cessation of gross conceptual, thoughts'. It is much simpler than it sounds. One simply stops paying attention to all of the input from the 5 senses and the mental sense perceiver, and relaxes in that state of 'absorption', for a while. It is described as a temporary liberation. it s quite restful and generally appreciated by both the body and the mind. It is not that hard to do, but our minds are used to having free rein, like a horse with the bit in his teeth, and we can get into all sorts of trouble that way.

daka

Manna wrote:

lazariuk wrote:Are you your thoughts?

my thoughts are me, just like my arm is.
orgasm isn't death, it's just a little bit of death, like my thoughts are little bit of me.

ok so are they less than your thoughts and your arm?

I don't know what you're asking

are my orgasms less than my thoughts or my arm?