Re: mind chatter : what plane ?

["Peter Reist" <preist@...>]

MJ,

By all means, play the devil's advocate. If you are familiar with the 
manner in which Rabbi's study you no doubt know the imporatance of 
the devils advocate.

The major problem that I see is that you are making the equation: 
mind chatter = the monkey mind and since the monkey mind is an 
unwanted state, therefore mind chatter is an unwanted state of mind. 
A perfectly logical sylogism A is B; B is C; therefore A is C. Would 
be all well and good if all of the premises (ie. A is B and B is C) 
where true. Which is something that I don't find to be the case.

Mind chatter can take numerous forms. It can be the monkey mind 
jumping all around, never attending to one thing for more than a 
moment, being swayed by the appetite and it's desires. Yet mental 
chatter can also range from the detached observation of a thing 
(observation of thought within IIH) to the intense concentration upon 
one thing and one thing alone (one pointedness). Or mind chatter can 
come in the form of complete vacancy of thought. While the latter may 
appear to be a state of mind in which nothing is occuring, I assure 
you that is far from the truth; there is quite a lot going on within 
the mind durring this state of 'emptiness'. Or rather, it is an 
emptiness that is waiting to be filled whereas with one pointedness 
and the observation of thought you are experiencing something that is 
more akin to a fullness that is waiting to be emptied.

We thus find that four primary states of mind that exist upon a 
continum: the monkey mind, emptiness of thought, one pointedness, and 
finially vacancy of thought. The latter three being the primary basis 
upon which the whole of IIH is founded upon which can be tentativly 
ascribed the elemental attributions of water, air and fire 
respectfully. Or at least those would be the attributions that I 
would make from my own personal work with the Archeaous. 

Each one of these exercises is harder than the next, and requires the 
scholar to have mastered the exercies prior; no one of these 
exercises is more valuable, or "powerfull" than the next. Thus I find 
the best way to image them would to be as the three points of a 
equalateral triangle. For from each point one can smoothly shift to 
either of the other two points effortlessly once one has a mediocrum 
of skill within all three exercises.

While each state of mind is of equal value, in general, but within 
certian situations one state of mind may take presedence over the 
others. For example, if one is obsessing about a certian person, or 
situation, or matter, one is already within a one pointed, fixed 
state of mind upon that one thing. Though, at the same time, that 
state of mind is, most likely, improper. In which case it would be 
best to shift back to a more objective state of mind governed by the 
observation of thought. From which you should be able to tease out 
the how's and why's of such a situation, and hopefully how to rectify 
it. If this sort of thing doesn't happen to easily, shifting from 
observation of thought *on this matter* to vacancy of mind and back 
again has a tendency to give inspiration and insight into the problem
(s) at hand.

Moreover, while Bardon does suggest that the scholar maintain a state 
of one pointedness (ie. when walking, just walk; when typing, just 
type; and so forth) throughout the day to develop a strong will and 
intellect. He does not state that it is absolutely necessary. At 
least within the first few steps of IIH. Once one progresses a little 
bit farther down the path things have a tendency to change slightly 
in regards to this.

Love and Live well,
Peter Reist