|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 18, 2015 9:30:27 GMT -5
There is only the happening, and i/me/you/we/us/them/Life are what is actually happening ‘now’, made known by our experience with it and revealed through the medium of mind, aside from that, there are memories, some flawed some not, predictions, and speculations, insights, and our choices of how we interpret and use the information revealed. Memories are interesting in that hypnosis, a form of stilling the mind, allows access to a much larger range of memories and verifiably more accurate. Hypnosis, though, is still relying on an active mind’s participation and the facilitator’s intentions.
The mind that finds its own actual stillness simultaneously finds clarity. Each individualized mindscape is cultivated by that experiencer’s personal history and is the sum of choices made, which when that mind is active the history and its effects influence the experiencer’s understanding of what is actually happening. Mind is the medium through which the experiencer experiences their existence, and through which existence informs the experiencer of the relationship between experience, experiencer, and the happening that is experienced.
There is a real, tangible, and verifiable existence that each experiencer lives, and there is another existence that is conceptualized and imagined. The religions, the philosophies, and the belief systems rely on the certainty that ideas/ideologies/beliefs cannot be verified or validated, and so whatever claims they make exist as consensus agreements without an experiencable actuality, but.. the effect of those religions, philosophies, and beliefs can exert forces on the experiencable reality, and.. as such, some deeds inspired by fantasy beliefs affect the reality experienced through the clarity of a still mind’s awareness.. hence there is the observation that oneness and manyness exist simultaneously, where oneness is an imagined quality of what is happening..
Mind is a pattern of force constructed by that experiencer and/or a collective of experiencers that shapes the movements of energy, in the form of thoughts, to conform with the patterns.. the pattern of force, 'mind', is fluid/malleable based on the experiencer's attachment or lack thereof to the patterns.. and mind’s patterns are shaped by the experiencer’s, one AND many, unique personal histories..
Mind is the medium through which awareness informs the experiencer of what is happening, and through which the experiencer interacts with its environment and other experiencers.. continually insisting that all is one, ‘not two’, because all is sourced from the same essence is mind-play expressed through word-play.. all experiencers reveal their acknowledgement that separation exists in their interactions with others, separation is separation regardless of what label is assigned to it, including ‘appearance’ or ‘difference’, those are separate perceptions and separate understandings, linked through the interconnectedness of the experiences of existence happening, which some label as 'oneness'..
Oneness, unlike a tree, or river, or cat, or person, is not an existent experience, it is imagined or conceptualized within the experiencer’s mind.. it is formless, unknown, intangible, insubstantial, a fertile understanding filled with potential for those not attached to it, and.. it is contrasted with the tangible, known, self-evident, structured, intentional existence.. Yin/Yang interacting, each becoming the other as the unknown is made known through the experience itself..
The still mind experiences what is happening, the active mind makes maps and ‘pointers’ like: nonduality/duality, oneness/separation, inside/outside, singularity/multiplicity.. together, the mind, still AND active, cultivates its understanding of the happening, it is the lens/pattern through which the experiencer interacts with its existence.. A still mind is not empty, and it’s not ‘no-mind’, it has suspended the active thinking process for the opportunity to see/experience its existence and its happening clearly.. in order for ‘that which is’ to reveal itself to the experiencers, the experiencers must let go of the beliefs they hold about that which ‘is’..
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 18, 2015 9:54:52 GMT -5
Whatever way mind is conceived of, it's not actually separate from the body.
One question that sort of straddles subjective and objective inquiry is, where does the body/mind end, and what the body/mind isn't, begin?
|
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 18, 2015 10:02:52 GMT -5
Whatever way mind is conceived of, it's not actually separate from the body. One question that sort of straddles subjective and objective inquiry is, where does the body/mind end, and what the body/mind isn't, begin?It doesn't begin/end.. it is/is-not, depending on the experiencer's intent.. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 18, 2015 10:19:44 GMT -5
Whatever way mind is conceived of, it's not actually separate from the body. One question that sort of straddles subjective and objective inquiry is, where does the body/mind end, and what the body/mind isn't, begin?It doesn't begin/end.. Objectively speaking, there is more than one of these objects, and with no perimeter, there is no multiplicity. it is/is-not, depending on the experiencer's intent.. One can notice the dependence of the existence of the object of the body/mind on other objects, like the Earth. Take the body/mind very far away from the surface of the Earth, like, say, to the top of Mt. Everest, or a few feet underwater in a lake, and it doesn't survive very long. Subjectively speaking, one can notice that this dependence, which is relevant to the inquiry as to the nature of the perimeter, is completely independent from the entirely mind-made artifact of intent. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 18, 2015 11:21:33 GMT -5
Objectively speaking, there is more than one of these objects, and with no perimeter, there is no multiplicity. Do you understand 'mind' as an 'object'? it is/is-not, depending on the experiencer's intent.. One can notice the dependence of the existence of the object of the body/mind on other objects, like the Earth. Take the body/mind very far away from the surface of the Earth, like, say, to the top of Mt. Everest, or a few feet underwater in a lake, and it doesn't survive very long. I concede that the body is constrained by physical limitations, but.. i am not aware of mind's limitations, also conceding our possible differences in understanding of 'mind'.. Subjectively speaking, one can notice that this dependence, which is relevant to the inquiry as to the nature of the perimeter, is completely independent from the entirely mind-made artifact of intent. I understand that the mind/body symbiosis is a both/and condition, where the totality is simultaneously limited by physical constraints AND limitless in mind's potential.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2015 11:28:08 GMT -5
There is only the happening, and i/me/you/we/us/them/Life are what is actually happening ‘now’, made known by our experience with it and revealed through the medium of mind, aside from that, there are memories, some flawed some not, predictions, and speculations, insights, and our choices of how we interpret and use the information revealed. Memories are interesting in that hypnosis, a form of stilling the mind, allows access to a much larger range of memories and verifiably more accurate. Hypnosis, though, is still relying on an active mind’s participation and the facilitator’s intentions. The mind that finds its own actual stillness simultaneously finds clarity. Each individualized mindscape is cultivated by that experiencer’s personal history and is the sum of choices made, which when that mind is active the history and its effects influence the experiencer’s understanding of what is actually happening. Mind is the medium through which the experiencer experiences their existence, and through which existence informs the experiencer of the relationship between experience, experiencer, and the happening that is experienced. There is a real, tangible, and verifiable existence that each experiencer lives, and there is another existence that is conceptualized and imagined. The religions, the philosophies, and the belief systems rely on the certainty that ideas/ideologies/beliefs cannot be verified or validated, and so whatever claims they make exist as consensus agreements without an experiencable actuality, but.. the effect of those religions, philosophies, and beliefs can exert forces on the experiencable reality, and.. as such, some deeds inspired by fantasy beliefs affect the reality experienced through the clarity of a still mind’s awareness.. hence there is the observation that oneness and manyness exist simultaneously, where oneness is an imagined quality of what is happening.. Mind is a pattern of force constructed by that experiencer and/or a collective of experiencers that shapes the movements of energy, in the form of thoughts, to conform with the patterns.. the pattern of force, 'mind', is fluid/malleable based on the experiencer's attachment or lack thereof to the patterns.. and mind’s patterns are shaped by the experiencer’s, one AND many, unique personal histories.. Mind is the medium through which awareness informs the experiencer of what is happening, and through which the experiencer interacts with its environment and other experiencers.. continually insisting that all is one, ‘not two’, because all is sourced from the same essence is mind-play expressed through word-play.. all experiencers reveal their acknowledgement that separation exists in their interactions with others, separation is separation regardless of what label is assigned to it, including ‘appearance’ or ‘difference’, those are separate perceptions and separate understandings, linked through the interconnectedness of the experiences of existence happening, which some label as 'oneness'.. Oneness, unlike a tree, or river, or cat, or person, is not an existent experience, it is imagined or conceptualized within the experiencer’s mind.. it is formless, unknown, intangible, insubstantial, a fertile understanding filled with potential for those not attached to it, and.. it is contrasted with the tangible, known, self-evident, structured, intentional existence.. Yin/Yang interacting, each becoming the other as the unknown is made known through the experience itself.. The still mind experiences what is happening, the active mind makes maps and ‘pointers’ like: nonduality/duality, oneness/separation, inside/outside, singularity/multiplicity.. together, the mind, still AND active, cultivates its understanding of the happening, it is the lens/pattern through which the experiencer interacts with its existence.. A still mind is not empty, and it’s not ‘no-mind’, it has suspended the active thinking process for the opportunity to see/experience its existence and its happening clearly.. in order for ‘that which is’ to reveal itself to the experiencers, the experiencers must let go of the beliefs they hold about that which ‘is’.. The knowledge that mind doesn't exist, dispels ignorance, while the illusion remains. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 18, 2015 13:05:17 GMT -5
Objectively speaking, there is more than one of these objects, and with no perimeter, there is no multiplicity. Do you understand 'mind' as an 'object'? it is/is-not, depending on the experiencer's intent.. One can notice the dependence of the existence of the object of the body/mind on other objects, like the Earth. Take the body/mind very far away from the surface of the Earth, like, say, to the top of Mt. Everest, or a few feet underwater in a lake, and it doesn't survive very long. I concede that the body is constrained by physical limitations, but.. i am not aware of mind's limitations, also conceding our possible differences in understanding of 'mind'.. Subjectively speaking, one can notice that this dependence, which is relevant to the inquiry as to the nature of the perimeter, is completely independent from the entirely mind-made artifact of intent. I understand that the mind/body symbiosis is a both/and condition, where the totality is simultaneously limited by physical constraints AND limitless in mind's potential.. that object of mind is, it's not really separate from, not other than, not independent of, the body, and that leads naturally to the question of the limit. If one draws the conclusion from the inquiry that the body is limited in time and space, then the same conclusion about the mind must follow, or, there must be some alternative definition of mind that is separate from, other than and independent of the body. This new notion of "totality" is one that is outside of the scope of the original question posed, but is related to it by way of the nature of the limit under question. Addressing this notion absent a consensus grounding about the limit is premature and would necessarily lead to confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 18, 2015 13:28:38 GMT -5
Do you understand 'mind' as an 'object'? I concede that the body is constrained by physical limitations, but.. i am not aware of mind's limitations, also conceding our possible differences in understanding of 'mind'.. I understand that the mind/body symbiosis is a both/and condition, where the totality is simultaneously limited by physical constraints AND limitless in mind's potential.. that object of mind is, it's not really separate from, not other than, not independent of, the body, and that leads naturally to the question of the limit. If one draws the conclusion from the inquiry that the body is limited in time and space, then the same conclusion about the mind must follow, or, there must be some alternative definition of mind that is separate from, other than and independent of the body. This new notion of "totality" is one that is outside of the scope of the original question posed, but is related to it by way of the nature of the limit under question. Addressing this notion absent a consensus grounding about the limit is premature and would necessarily lead to confusion. Do you understand mind to be an object? Mind and body are integrated, therefore not separate.. there is also 'group-mind' aka 'group-think', where a body may enter or exit that structure's scope without destroying the group-mind structure.. Based on Cosmic Consciousness experiences, i understand that mind, including individuated mind-scapes, survive the body's demise.. but, that enters the realm of speculation since not everyone is aware of their CC experiences.. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 19, 2015 6:48:55 GMT -5
Objects and relationships define one another, and the relationship between body and mind alluded to by the question of the inquiry is one of interpenetration. All it takes is a ray of sun or a cool breeze or the sound of a bird or leaves in the wind for attention to direct to the way the body feels. In this attention, mind is quiescent, tension is released, sensation comes to the forefront, and there is a relaxed opening to the world. Sights, sounds smells and the feel of air, water and earth predominate, and thoughts of memories or plans or other ghostly distractions of opposition dissipate. Physical sensation is the gateway to the here and the now. Do you understand mind to be an object? The OP objectifies mind, so engaging with the OP necessitates engaging with that objectification. The answer to the question should have been obvious from the opening. The relationship between body and mind wasn’t stated explicitly but the notion of the inquiry is entirely dependent on it and the relationship, in turn, is stated in terms of the object of mind. Mind and body are integrated, therefore not separate.. there is also 'group-mind' aka 'group-think', where a body may enter or exit that structure's scope without destroying the group-mind structure.. “ Group mind” of a “scope that a body may enter”? hmmmmmm …. Well, there is culture, which is the aggregate of expression of individual minds. Take this baroque fugue for instance: Bach expressed himself in a key and with a meter and by a language contrived and evolved by dozens of generations of thousands of musicians that came before him. The arrangement of the instruments in the piece were similar to others of the time, and Bach thought in terms of these as he composed. In his imagination he heard the dance between the horns, the strings and the woodwinds – instruments that were created before his birth, transcribed with a language invented by others who came and went long before he came along. So the creative expression of the individual rests firmly on the foundation of and is completely dependent on the culture from which it emerges, but on the other hand, culture, as in the form of Bach’s fugue, is only ever experienced in the individual mind. A similar observation applies to the artifact of the sciences. In contrast, “group mind” is suggestive of a monistic “collective mind” and connotes a complex intellectual structure that implicates paranormal phenomenon. The notion of culture, in further contrast, is simply a fact of describing human existence in terms of relationships and objects. Rather than resorting to a speculative term suggestive of the occult that blurs and obscures the localized nature of mind, describing the inquiry in terms of culture suffices to illuminate the apparent limits of the phenomena of body/mind, while focusing the fact that mind is an individual phenomenon. Intellect and the stillness of quiet contemplation can interpenetrate one another in that inquiry, in a sort of analog of the relationship between body and mind. Looking up at the stars at night, the mind can stop, in awe of the void. Simply considering the scale of what is known of the Universe through the abstract products of mind ties together moments of mental silence with the profound and illuminating results of the instruments of intellectual discovery. Instruments like this one, for instance:  Based on Cosmic Consciousness experiences, i understand that mind, including individuated mind-scapes, survive the body's demise.. but, that enters the realm of speculation since not everyone is aware of their CC experiences.. The fact of “cosmic consciousness” experiences is an excellent device of notice on the point of the different modes of inquiry: the subjective and the objective. In inquiring as to the limit of the body/mind, attention can land in one of two directions relative to that limit. In looking inward, one can maintain an orientation of detachment to what arises, and in this orientation, the bod/mind becomes still. In this state of stillness, if attention is redirected outward, what objects are perceived? No two experiences are ever completely the same, and this is simply the fact of unique perspective. The same is true of a “cosmic consciousness” experience. Any and all descriptions of experience are subjective, but that there are similarities in these that can lead to a recognition of what’s meant by the term implicates consensus objectivity. This consensus describes the ultimate absence of limit that can only ever be known subjectively. This absence doesn’t contradict the obvious temporal limitations of body and mind. Individual death is an obvious inevitable fact, but one that this absence places into a perspective that isn’t subject to description. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 19, 2015 8:49:00 GMT -5
Objects and relationships define one another, and the relationship between body and mind alluded to by the question of the inquiry is one of 'interpenetration'. Can we agree that 'interpenetration' and 'integration' both express the relationship between mind and body? All it takes is a ray of sun or a cool breeze or the sound of a bird or leaves in the wind for attention to direct to the way the body feels. In this attention, mind is quiescent, tension is released, sensation comes to the forefront, and there is a relaxed opening to the world. Sights, sounds smells and the feel of air, water and earth predominate, and thoughts of memories or plans or other ghostly distractions of opposition dissipate. Physical sensation is the gateway to the here and the now. Mind and understanding are equal partners with physical sensation in the 'gateway' concept.. Do you understand mind to be an object? The OP objectifies mind, so engaging with the OP necessitates engaging with that objectification. The answer to the question should have been obvious from the opening. The relationship between body and mind wasn’t stated explicitly but the notion of the inquiry is entirely dependent on it and the relationship, in turn, is stated in terms of the object of mind. I'm a simple kind of man, is that a yes or a no? Mind and body are integrated, therefore not separate.. there is also 'group-mind' aka 'group-think', where a body may enter or exit that structure's scope without destroying the group-mind structure.. “ Group mind” of a “ scope that a body may enter”? hmmmmmm …. Well, there is culture, which is the aggregate of expression of individual minds. Take this baroque fugue for instance: Bach expressed himself in a key and with a meter and by a language contrived and evolved by dozens of generations of thousands of musicians that came before him. The arrangement of the instruments in the piece were similar to others of the time, and Bach thought in terms of these as he composed. In his imagination he heard the dance between the horns, the strings and the woodwinds – instruments that were created before his birth, transcribed with a language invented by others who came and went long before he came along. That's an example of the interconnectedness of the human experience. So the creative expression of the individual rests firmly on the foundation of and is completely dependent on the culture from which it emerges, but on the other hand, culture, as in the form of Bach’s fugue, is only ever experienced in the individual mind. A similar observation applies to the artifact of the sciences. We can disagree on the creative expression being completely dependent on culture, there are too many accounts of creativity by those unaffected by cultural influences, or whose creativity transcends cultural limitations.. In contrast, “group mind” is suggestive of a monistic “collective mind” and connotes a complex intellectual structure that implicates paranormal phenomenon. The notion of culture, in further contrast, is simply a fact of describing human existence in terms of relationships and objects. Rather than resorting to a speculative term suggestive of the occult that blurs and obscures the localized nature of mind, describing the inquiry in terms of culture suffices to illuminate the apparent limits of the phenomena of body/mind, while focusing the fact that mind is an individual phenomenon. Interpretations of 'group mind' that relate to 'paranormal and occult' are that experiencer's choice of perspective, and not a definitive understanding of the group-mind experience.. Intellect and the stillness of quiet contemplation can interpenetrate one another in that inquiry, in a sort of analog of the relationship between body and mind. Looking up at the stars at night, the mind can stop, in awe of the void. Simply considering the scale of what is known of the Universe through the abstract products of mind ties together moments of mental silence with the profound and illuminating results of the instruments of intellectual discovery. We agree on this understanding, though the style of communication seems excessive to my capacity for dealing with unnecessarily complex reasoning.. Instruments like this one, for instance: Based on Cosmic Consciousness experiences, i understand that mind, including individuated mind-scapes, survive the body's demise.. but, that enters the realm of speculation since not everyone is aware of their CC experiences.. The fact of “cosmic consciousness” experiences is an excellent device of notice on the point of the different modes of inquiry: the subjective and the objective. In inquiring as to the limit of the body/mind, attention can land in one of two directions relative to that limit. In looking inward, one can maintain an orientation of detachment to what arises, and in this orientation, the bod/mind becomes still. In this state of stillness, if attention is redirected outward, what objects are perceived? We differ in our understanding of objective/subjective and inward/outward, i understand those as contrived and arbitrary differences.. No two experiences are ever completely the same, and this is simply the fact of unique perspective. The same is true of a “cosmic consciousness” experience. Any and all descriptions of experience are subjective, but that there are similarities in these that can lead to a recognition of what’s meant by the term implicates consensus objectivity. I understand that many experiences are exactly the same, but that they differ in their interpretations and understanding by unique experiencers, so.. that through comparative descriptions of the experiences themselves it is possible to reveal the common thread of consistency linking the interconnected wholeness such that a consensus understanding simplifies communication and aids in further exploration of the existence experience.. This consensus describes the ultimate absence of limit that can only ever be known subjectively. This absence doesn’t contradict the obvious temporal limitations of body and mind. Individual death is an obvious inevitable fact, but one that this absence places into a perspective that isn’t subject to description. We can disagree on the notion that absence of limit can only ever be known subjectively, but possibly agree that it can only be described subjectively.. So, if you're interested in continuing this discussion, i will inform you of my diminished interest should you continue this broad and unnecessarily complex style of communication.. i simply lack the interest/capacity for such expressive interpretations.. So, my son and i are off for a day of canoeing the Wekiva River... Cheers! |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 19, 2015 9:53:57 GMT -5
If, by "mind," we mean the intellect, then the world is NOT known through the intellect. The world is known through the body, directly. The intellect is like a computer. It imagines (in cartoon-like images and cartoon-like ideas) what has been seen, heard, or felt through direct sensory perception, and those images and ideas are then symbolized and represented by words and other graphic symbols or images. Words soon become substitutes for direct experience, and a verbal/graphic meta-reality is projected and then seen by the intellect rather than what is seen through direct sensory perception. IOW, the map is taken as synonymous for the territory, and the menu for the food.
Looking with a still mind allows the body to see "what is," as it is, rather than what an active mind imagines. A still mind does not see objects separate from the field of "what is;" it sees only what is happening--a verb rather than a host of nouns. A still mind does not see distinctions and abstractions; only an active mind imagines thingness and separation. There are no words that can capture what a still mind sees because the shutter of the mind does not freeze-frame the action into static images.
If a person takes a still camera (appropriately named) to a dance, the camera can never capture the action that the dance IS. Same same with mind. In order to see what IS--what's happening--, the mind is utterly useless. Its value lies elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 19, 2015 10:40:46 GMT -5
If, by "mind," we mean the intellect, then the world is NOT known through the intellect. The world is known through the body, directly. The intellect is like a computer. It imagines (in cartoon-like images and cartoon-like ideas) what has been seen, heard, or felt through direct sensory perception, and those images and ideas are then symbolized and represented by words and other graphic symbols or images. Words soon become substitutes for direct experience, and a verbal/graphic meta-reality is projected and then seen by the intellect rather than what is seen through direct sensory perception. IOW, the map is taken as synonymous for the territory, and the menu for the food. Looking with a still mind allows the body to see "what is," as it is, rather than what an active mind imagines. A still mind does not see objects separate from the field of "what is;" it sees only what is happening--a verb rather than a host of nouns. A still mind does not see distinctions and abstractions; only an active mind imagines thingness and separation. There are no words that can capture what a still mind sees because the shutter of the mind does not freeze-frame the action into static images. If a person takes a still camera (appropriately named) to a dance, the camera can never capture the action that the dance IS. Same same with mind. In order to see what IS--what's happening--, the mind is utterly useless. Its value lies elsewhere. What you say about the body knowing directly and the nature of objects is a statement of very profound depth that one can discover for themselves in practice. In meditation, quite obviously, intellect is quiescent. Intellect provides only an indirect view of the world but intellect and body can conspire together to answer this question of where the body/mind begins and ends. Did anyone imagine the literal embodiment of the void found between the Sun and the Earth before telescopes were invented? |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 24, 2015 5:27:45 GMT -5
If, by "mind," we mean the intellect, then the world is NOT known through the intellect. The world is known through the body, directly. The intellect is like a computer. It imagines (in cartoon-like images and cartoon-like ideas) what has been seen, heard, or felt through direct sensory perception, and those images and ideas are then symbolized and represented by words and other graphic symbols or images. Words soon become substitutes for direct experience, and a verbal/graphic meta-reality is projected and then seen by the intellect rather than what is seen through direct sensory perception. IOW, the map is taken as synonymous for the territory, and the menu for the food. Looking with a still mind allows the body to see "what is," as it is, rather than what an active mind imagines. A still mind does not see objects separate from the field of "what is;" it sees only what is happening--a verb rather than a host of nouns. A still mind does not see distinctions and abstractions; only an active mind imagines thingness and separation. There are no words that can capture what a still mind sees because the shutter of the mind does not freeze-frame the action into static images. If a person takes a still camera (appropriately named) to a dance, the camera can never capture the action that the dance IS. Same same with mind. In order to see what IS--what's happening--, the mind is utterly useless. Its value lies elsewhere. By mind i do not mean intellect, intellect is an attribute of mind.. To illustrate the "objects separate from the field of "what is"", when someone is injured do they go to the accountant for medical treatment, or.. when someone is being beaten, do they ask the goldfish to intervene?.. we identify separate objects as parts/instruments in the whole symphony because they are existent and necessary for that symphony to happen.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2015 18:54:05 GMT -5
Whatever way mind is conceived of, it's not actually separate from the body. One question that sort of straddles subjective and objective inquiry is, where does the body/mind end, and what the body/mind isn't, begin?Where does the snake/rope end, and what the snake/rope isn't, begin? |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 24, 2015 20:12:52 GMT -5
Whatever way mind is conceived of, it's not actually separate from the body. One question that sort of straddles subjective and objective inquiry is, where does the body/mind end, and what the body/mind isn't, begin?Where does the snake/rope end, and what the snake/rope isn't, begin? Mind is a function of 'that' which is body, arranging information revealed by experiences into patterns useful to the relationship between 'that' which is and its manifested incarnation as independently functioning versions of itself, bodies.. "Independently functioning" doesn't equate with autonomous.. it references an interconnected/unified function, a process dependent on the independent perspectives and private mindscapes for the spontaneity that manifests its limitless potential.. rather than perpetuating the self-fulfilling and self-limiting feedback loops generated by attachment ideological models.. Relative to the mind/body reference, mind doesn't begin/end.. our awareness/understanding of the medium of mind comes and goes.. |
|
