|
Post by tcejer on Oct 13, 2013 3:00:39 GMT -5
If it's your desire and choice for YOUR mind to be finite, limited by your fears and subordinates, then that is YOUR choice and thank (your) god for this. Thank (your) god also that your choice as such only applies to YOUR mind. I see mind as the process of cognition through which wholeness is bifurcated into dualistic pairs, and as such, it is a process of limitation itself, in the same sense that a prism is a device of limitation as it removes frequencies of light in order to produce a color. Not quite. A prism doesn't 'remove' frequencies, but rather 'identifies and separates' the individual yet conjoined frequencies. The colour then, is not produced, but revealed through such dissemination. In a similar manner, the mind, or consciousness is a constant and dynamic result of another set of frequencies. Yet rather than many (as in white light), the mind is a dualistic conjoining of (two) frequencies - which could perhaps be identified as; 1. Intelligence, and 2. Emotion
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2013 7:11:40 GMT -5
Seems that the word mind is the new version of the word god or the word reality, in that it will inspire endless debate over what the meaning is.
Mind is a word.
The meaning of a word is what the reader makes of it.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 13, 2013 7:50:10 GMT -5
Seems that the word mind is the new version of the word god or the word reality, in that it will inspire endless debate over what the meaning is. Mind is a word. The meaning of a word is what the reader makes of it. As noted in another thread, I've stopped using the word "mind" in the broad sense because there seem to be several separate functions that that word, by itself, lumps together. The intellect is the function of mind that distinguishes, defines, imagines, and manipulates images, ideas, and symbols--creating dualistic meta-realities.. Intuition is a function of mind that is capable of "knowing" things beyond the capacity of the intellect. It is a kind of direct knowing that can dive verticallly into what lies below the intellect. When the intellect is quiescent, it becomes possible to apprehend what some people here have called "the swamp."--the pre-conscious and perhaps subconscious stratum of mind which contain memories, feelings, impulses, intentions, motivations, etc. It's sort of like a dark subterranean area that underlies the crystallized distinctions that eventually emerge in the intellect. Who we are includes the whole shebang, but for most folks the intellect is dominant. This is why they feel separate from the world. Their bodies are unified with the world--indeed, are the world--but because attention is focused almost exclusively upon products of imagination, they see the trees but not the forest. Who we are pumps blood, regulates hormones, grows hair and skin, walks, talks, and imagines, and sees all of this. The seeing never changes in any way, and the seeing either sees "what is" or sees what is imagined. If attention shifts away from imagination to "what is," "what is" is eventually recognized to be all there is, and imagination is seen to be only a tiny aspect of that. Many Buddhist traditions distinguish between Big Mind, or One Mind, and small mind, but it seems clear that when they use the phrase "small mind" they are using it to refer to the intellect--a kind of floating layer of thoughts that obscures everything underlying it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2013 9:34:06 GMT -5
Seems that the word mind is the new version of the word god or the word reality, in that it will inspire endless debate over what the meaning is. Mind is a word. The meaning of a word is what the reader makes of it. As noted in another thread, I've stopped using the word "mind" in the broad sense because there seem to be several separate functions that that word, by itself, lumps together. The intellect is the function of mind that distinguishes, defines, imagines, and manipulates images, ideas, and symbols--creating dualistic meta-realities.. Intuition is a function of mind that is capable of "knowing" things beyond the capacity of the intellect. It is a kind of direct knowing that can dive verticallly into what lies below the intellect. When the intellect is quiescent, it becomes possible to apprehend what some people here have called "the swamp."--the pre-conscious and perhaps subconscious stratum of mind which contain memories, feelings, impulses, intentions, motivations, etc. It's sort of like a dark subterranean area that underlies the crystallized distinctions that eventually emerge in the intellect. Who we are includes the whole shebang, but for most folks the intellect is dominant. This is why they feel separate from the world. Their bodies are unified with the world--indeed, are the world--but because attention is focused almost exclusively upon products of imagination, they see the trees but not the forest. Who we are pumps blood, regulates hormones, grows hair and skin, walks, talks, and imagines, and sees all of this. The seeing never changes in any way, and the seeing either sees "what is" or sees what is imagined. If attention shifts away from imagination to "what is," "what is" is eventually recognized to be all there is, and imagination is seen to be only a tiny aspect of that. Many Buddhist traditions distinguish between Big Mind, or One Mind, and small mind, but it seems clear that when they use the phrase "small mind" they are using it to refer to the intellect--a kind of floating layer of thoughts that obscures everything underlying it. Yes, the whole shebang of what is includes the intellect, the body, emotions, feelings and intuition. Lawyers have a way of covering their statements with the disclaimer "without limitation". All the distinctions are potentially useful at some point, in terms of the gnosis, as opposed to any information-based knowledge, of what we are. To illustrate what this means, it includes the end of existential questioning, which doesn't preclude an endless potential for integrating this gnosis with our ongoing experience. One of the phenomenon that I've observed, especially in the last four years on these forums, both from myself and others, is the intellect fumbling around with the question of who or what it is that would make use of the distinctions, and to what end. (** smiles **)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2013 10:16:32 GMT -5
I see mind as the process of cognition through which wholeness is bifurcated into dualistic pairs, and as such, it is a process of limitation itself, in the same sense that a prism is a device of limitation as it removes frequencies of light in order to produce a color. Not quite. A prism doesn't 'remove' frequencies, but rather 'identifies and separates' the individual yet conjoined frequencies. The colour then, is not produced, but revealed through such dissemination. In a similar manner, the mind, or consciousness is a constant and dynamic result of another set of frequencies. Yet rather than many (as in white light), the mind is a dualistic conjoining of (two) frequencies - which could perhaps be identified as; 1. Intelligence, and 2. EmotionI don't equate mind and consciousness, so we have different definitions.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 13, 2013 10:20:06 GMT -5
Greetings.. Mind is the medium through and upon which awareness and perception is revealed to the experiencer. Ok, so what would be the purpose of this 'revealing'? Surely the purpose is the focal point, after all. mind is the interface between the experiencer and the experience, between the part and the whole, between the unknown and the known.. mind is the interface that processes the information revealed by awareness and perception in accordance with the beliefs and knowledge the experiencer believes is true.. mind is like a window through which the experiencer is aware of and perceives their existence, and the beliefs and knowledge that the experiencer is attached to, is like specks of dirt attached to the 'window'.. the more the mind is active and thinking and attached, the dirtier the window is.. still mind, clean window.. Your words above, although a little ambiguous appear reasonable/valid - until you arrive at your apparently illogical caveat towards the end. So how can mind have awareness, and at the same time be inactive? Does one in a coma (for instance) have a better awareness than an 'active'/'dirty window/mind? The 'purpose of revealing' is 'the revealing'.. without a common process, mind, for data/information capture such information as perceived by awareness would pass by unnoticed.. since individuals are possessed by the same 'common process' we are capable of relating with each other as long as we share the same understandings.. the implication of that is that we see/experience what happens and we have the option of sharing that information as actually seen/experienced, or embellishing/manipulating the raw data/information to align with personal beliefs.. data presented, after being manipulated by personal beliefs, cannot have the continuity of raw data, so the integrity of the shared collective awareness becomes unstable and confrontational as people become attached to their personal beliefs.. it is the willingness to see what 'is' that informs us of our relationship with our wholeness.. "One in a coma" has suspended/absent awareness, so when they emerge from the coma they have no information about what happened during their interval of suspended awareness, but.. unless the physical vehicle's infrastructure was damaged, you, as mind, retain access to mind's contents/wholeness.. you, as mind, can suspend your active thinking processes, become still and alert, so that the information revealed by awareness or contained in consciousness is not distorted by the active mind's thinking processes and beliefs.. it is the active mind's thinking/imagining processes that crafts the stories to support the beliefs it chooses to hold as true.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2013 10:52:55 GMT -5
Seems that the word mind is the new version of the word god or the word reality, in that it will inspire endless debate over what the meaning is. Mind is a word. The meaning of a word is what the reader makes of it. As noted in another thread, I've stopped using the word "mind" in the broad sense because there seem to be several separate functions that that word, by itself, lumps together. The intellect is the function of mind that distinguishes, defines, imagines, and manipulates images, ideas, and symbols--creating dualistic meta-realities.. Intuition is a function of mind that is capable of "knowing" things beyond the capacity of the intellect. It is a kind of direct knowing that can dive verticallly into what lies below the intellect. When the intellect is quiescent, it becomes possible to apprehend what some people here have called "the swamp."--the pre-conscious and perhaps subconscious stratum of mind which contain memories, feelings, impulses, intentions, motivations, etc. It's sort of like a dark subterranean area that underlies the crystallized distinctions that eventually emerge in the intellect. Who we are includes the whole shebang, but for most folks the intellect is dominant. This is why they feel separate from the world. Their bodies are unified with the world--indeed, are the world--but because attention is focused almost exclusively upon products of imagination, they see the trees but not the forest. Who we are pumps blood, regulates hormones, grows hair and skin, walks, talks, and imagines, and sees all of this. The seeing never changes in any way, and the seeing either sees "what is" or sees what is imagined. If attention shifts away from imagination to "what is," "what is" is eventually recognized to be all there is, and imagination is seen to be only a tiny aspect of that. Many Buddhist traditions distinguish between Big Mind, or One Mind, and small mind, but it seems clear that when they use the phrase "small mind" they are using it to refer to the intellect--a kind of floating layer of thoughts that obscures everything underlying it. I agree there's a valid distinction to be made there, and ironically, it's necessary because we've made the distinction called 'mind' by which we mean some functions and not others. Of course, there aren't any actual boundaries and the distinctions are arbitrary. For example, much of the 'swamp' of "memories, feelings, impulses, intentions, motivations, etc" is not hidden from the function of mind that "distinguishes, defines, imagines, and manipulates images, ideas, and symbols--creating dualistic meta-realities". All of the latter is actually motivated by the former, and it's only 'swampy' because we don't have an interest in noticing that allegedly hidden content, or perhaps one of those motivations is to NOT notice that content. Of course we know why we do things and how we feel about things, though we may pretend we don't. It's not so much that we're unaware of those swamp critters as it is that we're not 'mindful' of them. IOW, it's not that we've failed to activate some function of mind, rather we choose to ignore things for whatever reason. Becoming conscious is really the willingness to not ignore that stuff anymore, so while it may be useful to say the stuff we ignore (don't notice) isn't mind, it may also encourage us to keep ignoring.
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 13, 2013 11:55:53 GMT -5
Not quite. A prism doesn't 'remove' frequencies, but rather 'identifies and separates' the individual yet conjoined frequencies. The colour then, is not produced, but revealed through such dissemination. In a similar manner, the mind, or consciousness is a constant and dynamic result of another set of frequencies. Yet rather than many (as in white light), the mind is a dualistic conjoining of (two) frequencies - which could perhaps be identified as; 1. Intelligence, and 2. EmotionI don't equate mind and consciousness, so we have different definitions. I would certainly say this; for mine, due to long-term misunderstanding and confusion, we have developed way too many terms for such realities, so now struggle under many duplications and definition overlaps, and when we try to embrace all such words with slightly different definitions, simply adds unnecessary confusion to such understanding and discussion. The term 'soul' for instance, has a very simple definition, yet appears to have taken on as many mystery variations as there are folk who use it. So Enigma, what is the difference between the 'mind' and 'consciousness' - in your opinion and by your definitions? They must be reasonably close, I would've thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2013 12:05:06 GMT -5
Seems that the word mind is the new version of the word god or the word reality, in that it will inspire endless debate over what the meaning is. Mind is a word. The meaning of a word is what the reader makes of it. As noted in another thread, I've stopped using the word "mind" in the broad sense because there seem to be several separate functions that that word, by itself, lumps together. The intellect is the function of mind that distinguishes, defines, imagines, and manipulates images, ideas, and symbols--creating dualistic meta-realities.. Intuition is a function of mind that is capable of "knowing" things beyond the capacity of the intellect. It is a kind of direct knowing that can dive verticallly into what lies below the intellect. When the intellect is quiescent, it becomes possible to apprehend what some people here have called "the swamp."--the pre-conscious and perhaps subconscious stratum of mind which contain memories, feelings, impulses, intentions, motivations, etc. It's sort of like a dark subterranean area that underlies the crystallized distinctions that eventually emerge in the intellect. Who we are includes the whole shebang, but for most folks the intellect is dominant. This is why they feel separate from the world. Their bodies are unified with the world--indeed, are the world--but because attention is focused almost exclusively upon products of imagination, they see the trees but not the forest. Who we are pumps blood, regulates hormones, grows hair and skin, walks, talks, and imagines, and sees all of this. The seeing never changes in any way, and the seeing either sees "what is" or sees what is imagined. If attention shifts away from imagination to "what is," "what is" is eventually recognized to be all there is, and imagination is seen to be only a tiny aspect of that. Many Buddhist traditions distinguish between Big Mind, or One Mind, and small mind, but it seems clear that when they use the phrase "small mind" they are using it to refer to the intellect--a kind of floating layer of thoughts that obscures everything underlying it. Yeah, I think that it's the small mind that's causing all the confusion and conflict when in reality there is just One Mind not two... The seemingly separate small mind is really a system of thought based on sequential time. And of course all beliefs in regard to the system of thought are real to the believer. And one of the beliefs in that system of thought is that with the help of Big Mind, small mind can be a co-creator and in the process establish itself in the form of an image. Essentially small mind through belief creates a perception of itself. Of course small mind can only believe that the perception is true, but it can't actually make it true. Now the small mind doesn't want the game exposed so it's sole mission is to defend that system of thought from ever becoming conscious... Ooooops....sorry small mind...
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 13, 2013 12:21:50 GMT -5
Ok, so what would be the purpose of this 'revealing'? Surely the purpose is the focal point, after all. Your words above, although a little ambiguous appear reasonable/valid - until you arrive at your apparently illogical caveat towards the end. So how can mind have awareness, and at the same time be inactive? Does one in a coma (for instance) have a better awareness than an 'active'/'dirty window/mind? The 'purpose of revealing' is 'the revealing'.. without a common process, mind, for data/information capture such information as perceived by awareness would pass by unnoticed.. since individuals are possessed by the same 'common process' we are capable of relating with each other as long as we share the same understandings.. the implication of that is that we see/experience what happens and we have the option of sharing that information as actually seen/experienced, or embellishing/manipulating the raw data/information to align with personal beliefs.. data presented, after being manipulated by personal beliefs, cannot have the continuity of raw data, so the integrity of the shared collective awareness becomes unstable and confrontational as people become attached to their personal beliefs.. it is the willingness to see what 'is' that informs us of our relationship with our wholeness.. Above I see a lot of words which, when placed together probably make sense to the writer, however the simple reality is we do NOT put data into a computer simply for the sake of inputting data. There is generally a purpose beyond such injection. So if you think 'the purpose of revealing' stops at 'the revealing' - well you simply haven't reasoned out your argument sufficiently, which is why I was prompted to ask the question in the first place. I'd suggest you'd best delve a little deeper and in future try to avoid verbosity confusion. "One in a coma" has suspended/absent awareness, so when they emerge from the coma they have no information about what happened during their interval of suspended awareness, but.. unless the physical vehicle's infrastructure was damaged, you, as mind, retain access to mind's contents/wholeness.. you, as mind, can suspend your active thinking processes, become still and alert, so that the information revealed by awareness or contained in consciousness is not distorted by the active mind's thinking processes and beliefs.. it is the active mind's thinking/imagining processes that crafts the stories to support the beliefs it chooses to hold as true.. More verbiage baggage and word distortion without depth, insight or cohesion. When you've explored a little deeper below the surface, you'll have a whole lot more to say with a whole lot less words, and we might have grounds for a discussion. Until then, be well!
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 13, 2013 13:01:55 GMT -5
Seems that the word mind is the new version of the word god or the word reality, in that it will inspire endless debate over what the meaning is. Mind is a word. The meaning of a word is what the reader makes of it. What a recipe for entrenched befuddlement right there; "Let's not have any consistent definitions for the purpose of clarity and genuine discussion, but make of whatever term as whim demands!" Surely a couple of Intelligent beings can do a little better than this - in the name of reason and logic?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 13, 2013 13:23:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. The 'purpose of revealing' is 'the revealing'.. without a common process, mind, for data/information capture such information as perceived by awareness would pass by unnoticed.. since individuals are possessed by the same 'common process' we are capable of relating with each other as long as we share the same understandings.. the implication of that is that we see/experience what happens and we have the option of sharing that information as actually seen/experienced, or embellishing/manipulating the raw data/information to align with personal beliefs.. data presented, after being manipulated by personal beliefs, cannot have the continuity of raw data, so the integrity of the shared collective awareness becomes unstable and confrontational as people become attached to their personal beliefs.. it is the willingness to see what 'is' that informs us of our relationship with our wholeness.. Above I see a lot of words which, when placed together probably make sense to the writer, however the simple reality is we do NOT put data into a computer simply for the sake of inputting data. There is generally a purpose beyond such injection. So if you think 'the purpose of revealing' stops at 'the revealing' - well you simply haven't reasoned out your argument sufficiently, which is why I was prompted to ask the question in the first place. I'd suggest you'd best delve a little deeper and in future try to avoid verbosity confusion. "One in a coma" has suspended/absent awareness, so when they emerge from the coma they have no information about what happened during their interval of suspended awareness, but.. unless the physical vehicle's infrastructure was damaged, you, as mind, retain access to mind's contents/wholeness.. you, as mind, can suspend your active thinking processes, become still and alert, so that the information revealed by awareness or contained in consciousness is not distorted by the active mind's thinking processes and beliefs.. it is the active mind's thinking/imagining processes that crafts the stories to support the beliefs it chooses to hold as true.. More verbiage baggage and word distortion without depth, insight or cohesion. When you've explored a little deeper below the surface, you'll have a whole lot more to say with a whole lot less words, and we might have grounds for a discussion. Until then, be well! Cool.. it's unfortunate that you can't grasp the 'word baggage', but.. it is what it is.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 13, 2013 13:50:13 GMT -5
Seems that the word mind is the new version of the word god or the word reality, in that it will inspire endless debate over what the meaning is. Mind is a word. The meaning of a word is what the reader makes of it. As noted in another thread, I've stopped using the word "mind" in the broad sense because there seem to be several separate functions that that word, by itself, lumps together. The intellect is the function of mind that distinguishes, defines, imagines, and manipulates images, ideas, and symbols--creating dualistic meta-realities. What do you mean by 'creating dualistic meta-realities'? The intellect is the function of mind The term 'Intellect' is a duplication of terms created through gross misunderstanding. The misunderstanding then, is of Intelligence, who is most certainly NOT 'a function' of the mind at all, and most definitely NOT an inert by-product of the brain, but indeed is dynamic and preeminent to both (spiritual) 'mind' and (physical) brain. Intuition is a function of mind that is capable of "knowing" things beyond the capacity of the intellect. It is a kind of direct knowing that can dive verticallly into what lies below the intellect. As with 'intellect' and 'intuition', the term 'Instinct' was coined by folk who had (at best) a severely lacking understanding of consciousness, and has ever since been burned into our illogical reasoning. It's another case of inconsistent word duplication. Use it to your heart's content if you will, but in short; there really is no such thing as 'instinct'. When the intellect is quiescent, it becomes possible to apprehend what some people here have called "the swamp."--the pre-conscious and perhaps subconscious stratum of mind which contain memories, feelings, impulses, intentions, motivations, etc. It's sort of like a dark subterranean area that underlies the crystallized distinctions that eventually emerge in the intellect. More unnecessary duplication. You might be interested that your 'memories, feelings, impulses, intentions, motivations, etc', are virtually all the same thing; repeated. They all have to do with emotion; stored as memory, and come to resemble a 'swamp' due to the mind disorientation we sub-consciously support - to our great detriment. Also; Intelligence (rather than 'the Intellect') - the active, dynamic, spiritual essence underpinning all existence is never, even for a second quiescent, otherwise life and indeed existence would cease altogether. Who we are includes the whole shebang, but for most folks the intellect is dominant. Not so! By default, emotion is by far the most dominant, even though the other prime into consciousness; Intelligence is an infinitely superior authority. This dysfunctional dichotomy, is of course the source and reason behind the dilemma and subsequent confusion under which we struggle - by default. This is why they feel separate from the world. Their bodies are unified with the world--indeed, are the world--but because attention is focused almost exclusively upon products of imagination, they see the trees but not the forest. Who we are pumps blood, regulates hormones, grows hair and skin, walks, talks, and imagines, and sees all of this. Your conclusion is quite correct, yet not for the reasons you suggest. We see ourselves, or feel separate due to the fact that we relate to 'self' predominantly via our sensory system. Our sensory system in turn suggests a 'separatedness' into our reasoning; a result of it surely being separated from that of another. So your point is valid - we are NEVER separated from the planet nor from each other. Such perception is entirely illogical, yet prevails due to the dynamic that our mindset is primarily founded upon our (isolated) sensory system - and therefore our consciousness; upon the result of this same dynamic, is administered by our emotion prime. The seeing never changes in any way, and the seeing either sees "what is" or sees what is imagined. If attention shifts away from imagination to "what is," "what is" is eventually recognized to be all there is, and imagination is seen to be only a tiny aspect of that. In the duality that is consciousness, there are two entirely separate dynamics constantly in conflict with each other - towards comprising THE ONE perspective. These are the objective, dealing entirely with what you term 'what is', and the subjective - i.e. your 'imagined'. Such are the dual products of the two antithetical primes (or if you like - parental influences) into our consciousness; Intelligence and emotion.
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 13, 2013 14:02:22 GMT -5
Greetings.. Above I see a lot of words which, when placed together probably make sense to the writer, however the simple reality is we do NOT put data into a computer simply for the sake of inputting data. There is generally a purpose beyond such injection. So if you think 'the purpose of revealing' stops at 'the revealing' - well you simply haven't reasoned out your argument sufficiently, which is why I was prompted to ask the question in the first place. I'd suggest you'd best delve a little deeper and in future try to avoid verbosity confusion. More verbiage baggage and word distortion without depth, insight or cohesion. When you've explored a little deeper below the surface, you'll have a whole lot more to say with a whole lot less words, and we might have grounds for a discussion. Until then, be well! Cool.. it's unfortunate that you can't grasp the 'word baggage', but.. it is what it is.. The 'word baggage' might be easier to grasp, if not for packing so much superfluous clutter and chagrin.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2013 14:45:46 GMT -5
Seems that the word mind is the new version of the word god or the word reality, in that it will inspire endless debate over what the meaning is. Mind is a word. The meaning of a word is what the reader makes of it. What a recipe for entrenched befuddlement right there; "Let's not have any consistent definitions for the purpose of clarity and genuine discussion, but make of whatever term as whim demands!" Surely a couple of Intelligent beings can do a little better than this - in the name of reason and logic? Discussion or even debate to find common ground on the meaning of a word is often very useful and sometimes even necessary ... how else can you figure out what someone means by it, right? What happens sometimes though are conversations using various terms prior to establishing that common ground. Another common source of useless conflict is a repetitive insistence on using one meaning when someone else has refused to let go of a different definition. To be clear -- I'm not discouraging any of that. There's nothing wrong with it even if I have the opinion that some of it is negative and futile, and none of it is against any rule here. It's just that as writers we have the opportunity to take responsibility for how a given term will be interpreted and as readers we have a corresponding opportunity to meet the writer where they are.
|
|