HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: CCENS03@USLVM.USL.EDU
Subject: Re: odd sensations
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:49:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.184744.29209@uwm.edu>
glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
 
>Every once in a while I just let go and I feel a wave of
>pleasure pass over me.  It is a physical tingling sensation
>that leaves me feeling peaceful.  I also have a similar
>sensation when I let go and am listening to some classical
>music that really moves me.  I know that this cannot be my
>imagination because it is such a powerful sensation.
>
>Last Sunday, I went to my first Quaker meeting, and sat I
>silent meditation with them for around 45 minutes or so.  As
>usual I felt this tingling sensation.  But also I saw through
>a window in the trees a fuzzy greenish blue ball of light.  I
>passed this off as my eyes playing tricks on me.
>
>This week when an extremely filthy homeless person walked by
>while I was waiting for the bus I started to put up the usual
>walls I put up against people in my heart.  But then this time
>I let go of all the walls to let him into my heart.  As I did
>this I thought I saw this ball of white light come flying toward
>me out of the corner of my eye and I felt it wedge into the left
>side of my chest.  I think I can still feel whatever it was in
>there right now.
>
>I guess the question is, am I imagining these sensations?
>(Aside from the wave of pleasure that I know I do not imagine.)
>And if I am not imagining these sensations, what are they?
>  (stuff deleted)
 
>Glenn                               glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
 
It sounds to me like you are opening up spiritually.  There's a point in
spiritual growth at which your third eye starts opening up rather rapidly, and
you start seeing things in the spirit world with your human eyes.  What you are
seeing is energy, possibly entities making themselves manifest to you.
Especially after long meditations, and more so with groups, this happens.  When
my husband started seeing energy like that he started to freak out (he was
teaching a class at the time and kept seeing stuff shoot out of his students'
auras), but then realized what was happening and began to learn to control it.
It wasn't so abrupt with me, when I started seeing energy like that I was more
aware of what it was so I wasn't worried.  Anywa, it's a good sign, keep doing
what you're doing and try to learn to control it.  A good way to practice
seeing energy is to meditate by staring at a white or light-colored wall or
ceiling.  You can start seeing formless energy, like heat off asphalt, then
shapes and colors as you described, then they'll start taking forms.  I wanted
to say all this on the network, because I think you might get some science
dudes telling you it's an optical illusion and I wanted to publicly state my
view about it, but if you'd like to talk further, please E-mail me.  Best
wishes.
 
                                             Ellen
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Tibetan Book of the Dead
Summary: something salient, shortly stated, sadly seldom satoric
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:48:24 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <1992Jul21.163546.229431@cs.cmu.edu> dwp+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug Philips) writes:

>In article <zlsiida.923@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>+well I've read enough of the Bardo Thodol (TibBkDead) to know what to do if 
>+it turns out to be true, but I don't expect it to.

>Stephen Levine in "Who Dies?" talks briefly about TBD.  Basically he said
>paraphrasing liberally, that unless you grew up with that culture, the TBD
                                     -----------------------------
you have to grow up being dead?    ;->


>wouldn't be apropos to your experience.  Makes sense to me.

Essentially this claims a Tibetan gets a clear white light and others don't.
Yet others report that they do.  I'm reading other stuff on what to do when 
one dies just in case!

+--Great Quotes of our Time-------------------------------------------+
|        You should never have a hobby that eats                      |
+--------------------------------------Amarillo Slim Preston----------+          
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England  (44)061-275-6033   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Subject: nirvana ?
Originator: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Keywords: Nirvana
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:14:37 GMT

Hmmmm two questions... First I need someone to clear up a
point where I disagree with someone.  Someone is telling me
that the gist of Buddhism is just to get rid of the desires
that we do not wish to have.  (Let's not get into whether we
really desire something we don't wish to desire.)
 
My understanding of Zen is that one lets go of _all_ desire
(and inhibitions too), regardless of how "healty" or
"unhealthy" they might be.
 
The second question is realated to the question I asked earlier
about having to give up passion for Buddhism.  I really need a
better understanding of Nirvana.  Nirvana is supposed to be our
goal, a heaven.  My impression is that in order to achieve
Nirvana, one must not only let go of all desires, but one must
give up existence.  Now suppose universal Nirvana is achieved.
That would mean that all existence would cease.
 
This is where I get lost.  What is the point of ending all
existence?  It sounds more like a suicide not just of the body,
but of the soul.  Why?  What's left?
 
Isn't passionately striving for love, happiness, and beauty
much better than non-existence?
--
Love is the purpose of existence.  As such, love is the source
of all *MEANING*.  Any use of power over others is the failure
to love, thus such power is meaningless.           -Me
 
Glenn Engelbart                        glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
From: mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: The Mind: A Model (Part 1)
Date: 22 Jul 92 10:56:18 GMT
Reply-To: mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester UK

In article <MURPHYG.92Jul15114358@murphyg.Software.Mitel.COM> murphyg@Software.Mitel.COM (Gary Murphy) writes:
>How much of our mind's definition is dependent on the experience of
>being amongst other minds?  In child development, we observe very young
>children unable to divest their concept of self from their surroundings.
>They (and some less mature individuals) spontaneously assume others are
>thinking what they are thinking and become frustrated in their dealings
>with the world until they can adjust their model.  Then there is this
>whole notion of the modelling process itself!

Yes, previous posters have suggested some correspondence between
	consciousness <==> ability to pay attention

Surely, there is a much much closer correspondence between
	consciousness <==> ability to model

Taking Dawkins "Blind Watchmaker" view the world... the species which
manages to mutate to (in some way) anticipate the next move of its
opponent (whether it be preditor or prey) would have the edge on the
version of the species that doesn't, and hence more likely to survive.

Such anticipation comes from an internal simulation of the external object.

Having acquired this piece of biological system (both the hardware and
software), it can be harnessed for other uses too.

Because you and I might be facing each other in the O.K.Corral one day,
nature has given us both the ability to model each other's likely behaviours.
Because I am constantly tuning my model of you, as I receive more and more
input from observation, my model is getting more and more accurate.  I am
getting inside you more and more.

Even though it is highly unlikely that we will, indeed, meet in the O.K.Corral,
this effort isn't wasted.  My better and better model of you, allows me to
understand you better... and to resolve ambiguity better.  (e.g. When you use
the word "net" in your postings, I would immediately think of the "usenet",
and only later try "fishing nets", "net profit", etc, if the first try didn't
make sense.  But if my step-son said "net", I would first assume "fishing net").

To me, consciousness is tied up with appreciation of others
(others' feelings, others' wishes, others' likely next actions, others' properties).
[When the "others" are inanimate (like rocks), then only the last applies].
This appreciation comes as a by-product of my model of them... tuning a small
part of my mind to think like them.

What do others think?
--

Malcolm SHUTE.         (The AM Mollusc:   v_@_ )        Disclaimer: all
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Reality
Date: 22 Jul 92 09:50:53 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <1992Jul21.144546.20760@encore.com> dlinde@fenix.encore.com (David Allan Linde) writes:

>In article <zlsiida.984@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>, zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>|> In article <1992Jul16.122248.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> jtulli@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>|> 
>|> >this cycle.  there is more going on than we can see (at higher vibratory rates)
>|> >Jude
>|> 
>|> Want to try a physics explanation of 'higher vibratory rate'?
>|> 
>    Sure.  The electromagnetic frequency range which is perceived by the human
>species is quite a small part of the spectrum.  One might also argue that our
>senses are not sensitive enough to register fields generated by entities that
>may be present.

Oh I thought you were including instrumentation in 'we can see'.  What 
frequencies are you thinking of here? Because: instrumentation can see a 
very wide range of frequencies but I've not yet heard of a consciousness-
meter.

>     The model which impressed me the most viewed everything from an energy
>point of view.  When you move though space or touch something you leave a faint
>trace of your energy (or essence).  Since energy can not be destroyed but only
>transformed, when our physical body dies, our essence (energy blueprint) should
>continue to exist. The question I wrestle with is whether the remaining energy
>field has consciousness and for how long.  I have convinced myself of the
>first part of this and continue to seek the how long part.

Energy comes in quanta which don't sit still, so your field dissipates at 
the speed of light.  Not very useful.
The only version of this idea that ever seemed to have a future to me is to 
make consciousness (or an energy-field body-template, or somesuch) a 
standing wave.  However I'm not at all sure how these work with quanta: I 
only know how they work with hard stuff like water.


+--Great Quotes of our Time-------------------------------------------+
|        You should never have a hobby that eats                      |
+--------------------------------------Amarillo Slim Preston----------+          
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England  (44)061-275-6033   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: nirvana ?
Keywords: Nirvana
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:06:47 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <zlsiida.1059@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:

>I think Nirvana is just something that happens if and when you become a 
>perfectly realised being, rather than a target to aim for.  Ditto Zen's 
>Samadhi.
 Obviously I meant Satori
caffeine lack
From: mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: The Mind: A Model (Part 1)
Date: 22 Jul 92 11:07:11 GMT
Reply-To: mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester UK

In article <1992Jul16.153715.13865@husc3.harvard.edu> thaxter@husc8.harvard.edu (Jason Thaxter) writes:
>I guess what is unique is that the process is somehow self-generating,
>since the model really stems from the thing it is trying to describe.  [...]
>The thing is creating an unreal, abstract version of itself.  [...] If there's
>a mathematician in the house, perhaps s/he could explain how the language of
>the model could be constructed in such a way that the thing that is being
>modeled would have to be aware of its own existance, assuming that this
>fact could be expressed in the language of the model.
>	In other words, the other splinter of this thread, which concerns
>attention, also is stuck at this point.  How did the being's attention
>stray from it's original focus and come to contemplate its own self, and
>the attention come to contemplate the attention?

Of course, there is nothing new here, as far as evolution is concerned.
Going back to the "Blind Watchmaker" view of the world again,
no DNA sequence ever decided that it 'wanted' to survive.
Some, though, had the *ability* to survive, and so did; whilst others
did not, and so didn't.

Just as we can all see how the whole living world *could* have bootstrapped
itself up from inorganic soup (regardless of whether we actually believe that
this is what *did* happen, we can still (nearly) all believe it is a viable
alternative method)... so, too, could consciousness bootstap itself up from
nothing.  My brain is conscious, because it has the *ability* to be conscious,
not because it wanted to be conscious.

The above waffling, on my part, of course has said nothing!
I'm not arguing with anyone... or proposing anything new.
I just wanted to make sure that the obvious had been pointed out.
(I think I succeeded!)
--

Malcolm SHUTE.         (The AM Mollusc:   v_@_ )        Disclaimer: all
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: tertium@milton.u.washington.edu (l boyd)
Subject: Re: Meditation (was: TM's effect on populace)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:58:32 GMT

dwp+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug Philips) writes:

>+But, in a broader sense, you _do_ expect to make spiritual
>+progress; you just don't think about it and judge your
>+experiences all the time. Its a subtle point. I hope I've made 
>+it clear. Dont the zen people, _overall_, expect something positive
>+out of the process of letting go?

Steve Levine speaks eloquently of grasping after experience (the "perfect"
meditation session) as a form of spiritual greed.  And greed is any kid of
grasping, and it always creates suffering.

My "objectives" (if you will) when I meditate are only to see my life more
clearly.  I would love to achieve liberation, and cannot do it if I am
constantly the victim of desires and motivations that I don't know about.

I do it, not for some sense of progress, but so that I will treat myself and
other beings more honestly and equitably.  It simply makes my life easier.

It's a lot like exercise, I suppose.  We may start out with grand visions of
how this will help us have the steely body from hell (and some continue to
that goal), but part-way through to our goal, it's apparent that exercis
is an objective unto itself.  Not always fun, but it certainly makes one
feel better.


******************************************************************************
Lauren Boyd					Department of Otolaryngology
Systems Analyst/Programmer			University of Washington, RL-30
*Go Huskies*					Seattle, Washington  98195
******************************************************************************
From: dwp+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Meditation (was: TM's effect on populace)
Summary: something salient, shortly stated, sadly seldom satoric
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:53:02 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

alt.consciousness
Re: Meditation (was: TM's effect on populace)
In article <tertium.711838712@milton>
	tertium@milton.u.washington.edu (l boyd) writes:
+Steve Levine speaks eloquently of grasping after experience (the "perfect"
+meditation session) as a form of spiritual greed.  And greed is any kid of
+grasping, and it always creates suffering.

That is why I find the distinction between expectation/greed and
aspiration important.  (Others besides Levine talk about desiring the
"perfect" meditation session).

+My "objectives" (if you will) when I meditate are only to see my life more
+clearly.  I would love to achieve liberation, and cannot do it if I am
+constantly the victim of desires and motivations that I don't know about.

+I do it, not for some sense of progress, but so that I will treat myself and
+other beings more honestly and equitably.  It simply makes my life easier.

Agreed.

-Doug
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: nirvana ?
Keywords: Nirvana
Date: 28 Jul 92 11:08:02 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <1992Jul27.171437.15641@uwm.edu> glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:

Disclaimer:  I'm not an expert on Buddhism; not even a lay Buddhist.

>Hmmmm two questions... First I need someone to clear up a
>point where I disagree with someone.  Someone is telling me
>that the gist of Buddhism is just to get rid of the desires
>that we do not wish to have.  (Let's not get into whether we
>really desire something we don't wish to desire.)
> 
>My understanding of Zen is that one lets go of _all_ desire
>(and inhibitions too), regardless of how "healty" or
>"unhealthy" they might be.

I think mainstream Buddhism would say that, ultimately, all desire is 
unhealthy.  And of course Zen is a form of Buddhism, even though it looks a 
bit different.
> 
>The second question is realated to the question I asked earlier
>about having to give up passion for Buddhism.  I really need a
>better understanding of Nirvana.  Nirvana is supposed to be our
>goal, a heaven.  My impression is that in order to achieve
>Nirvana, one must not only let go of all desires, but one must
>give up existence.  Now suppose universal Nirvana is achieved.
>That would mean that all existence would cease.

I think Nirvana is just something that happens if and when you become a 
perfectly realised being, rather than a target to aim for.  Ditto Zen's 
Samadhi.
all existence would cease...NOT    all illusion would cease, yes; remember 
this world is just illusion for a Buddhist.  Byebye to your physical form 
doesn't necessarily mean byebye altogether.
> 
>Isn't passionately striving for love, happiness, and beauty
>much better than non-existence?

love---hate     happiness---misery     beauty---ugliness
Striving for one end of a pair of opposites is to bring the other end into 
existence as well.
Of course you may be meaning love in a similar sense to some of the 
christians: in which case, when all desire is gone, Whether you make 
Nirvana or not, love is what you end up with.

Any REAL buddhists out there want to quibble, expand, comment?
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: vsharma@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Vin Sharma)
Subject: Re:Language and Thought
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Va.
Distribution: alt.consciousness
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 06:21:58 GMT

----------------------------------------------------------------------

linguists and others concerned with these particular matters that human 
language has as its main function 
		
	_that_of_constructing_realities_as_envisaged_by_its_speakers,
	_not_of_just_labelling_a_pre-existing_reality.

Language is symbolic--and what is 
not symbolic does not constitute language. 

-- --------------------------------------------------------------------

Doesnt every language have a non-symbolic component. The very idea of
`negation' seems non-symbolic to me. To what does `nothing' refer to
in the world? Or `Chaos'. I think these words dont symbolise what exists
but point towards what does not. If `Chaos' is to have meaning it must refer
to what has been percieved - that being the absence of Order. If the word is
to be a faithful representaion of what has been percieved it must retain the
quality of perception.But isnt this very purpose defeated? Doesnt the word 
`chaos' impose order upon the phenomenon by allowing us to confine it within
a linguistic system?
 
If language configures the mind  into a knowledge structure
then how do these words form a part of that cognitive structure? These 
seem to be components of a linguistic system whose purpose is to be
loopholes of the system itself.

Vin
---

-- 
                   
                  Confusion will be my epitaph
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Reality
Date: 22 Jul 92 09:40:44 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <_lcm-!m_@aix01.rz.fht-mannheim.de> mw@frodo.ki.fht-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz) writes:

>Dave Budd <zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> wrote:
>: >I think the original question was:
>: >How does one (think to) know that "the world" is not "just a dream".
>: >Don't know any theoretical counter-argument to solipsism
>: 
>: How about: although there are minor differences in our perceptions of the 
>: world, there is actual massive agreement about almost all of it.  Then 
>: again, on alt.dreams some people claim to be able to share dreams, so...
>No, the point is (within that concept) that there are no "other people",
>no "other world", but only one's experience, including the feeling one
>were one person among others, one specific being in the world. In other
>words, you are just dreaming to receive mail from another person :-)

I don't think my bit [ shown >: ] was supposed to be a response to the other 
bit [shown >: > ].


+--Great Quotes of our Time-------------------------------------------+
|        You should never have a hobby that eats                      |
+--------------------------------------Amarillo Slim Preston----------+          
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England  (44)061-275-6033   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,alt.paranormal
From: probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst)
Subject: Re: a couple of questions
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:55:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.155203.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> jtulli@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>
>also, i have read that simultaneous physical lives is a possibility (space and
>time are illusions, right?  i think so).  i was also wondering if anyone has
>ever met another person with the same consciousness, or whether people think it
>might be possible to do so. 

i know that the great tibetan teacher jamyang kontrul was asserted to have 
reincarnated in five different people, or emanations, simultaneously. they
were know by either different titles or as 'janyang kontrul of <>'. one of
them lived in canada till his death just three or four years ago. so certainly
they could meet each other.... but it does not mean that they would be meeting
identical people to themselves, as each had different life histories and
ways of dealing with situations, etc. a little odd at first glance, i guess,
but there you go.

sp

-- 
Scott Probst: Brain and Behaviour Laboratory, Psychology dept, SFU
              Graduate Issues Officer, Simon Fraser Student Society.
e-mail: probst@fraser.sfu.ca - ph: (604) 291 3354/3181 - fax: (604) 291 5843
              "yes, well, and here we go again..."   Dr H.S. Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,alt.paranormal