Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 7:12:55 GMT -5
Ramana mentions this as a result of enlightenment. But folks tend to take it literally as if the mind is an actual thing like a machine or a movie projector that gets blown up. The mind is a concept, a construct, an artificial delimiter that encapsulates thought so that we can say these are "our" thoughts because they are occurring in "our" mind. The mind is destroyed when you realize there is no actual mind. No such entity. Thoughts occur in the same place that rain storms occur, that life occurs. In us, what we are.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 14, 2019 9:07:35 GMT -5
Ramana mentions this as a result of enlightenment. But folks tend to take it literally as if the mind is an actual thing like a machine or a movie projector that gets blown up. The mind is a concept, a construct, an artificial delimiter that encapsulates thought so that we can say these are "our" thoughts because they are occurring in "our" mind. The mind is destroyed when you realize there is no actual mind. No such entity. Thoughts occur in the same place that rain storms occur, that life occurs. In us, what we are. People conceive of mind in many different ways. I've always used the term as synonymous with "intellect" or the operation of the frontal cortex--that part of the brain that generates ideas, images, and symbols and is responsible for "mental talk." Tolle and other contemporary ND sages suggest "getting out of one's head" by which they mean becoming free of attachment to ideas about the world so that one can interact with reality much like a small child--directly. I think Ramana's comments about "destroying" the mind are generally misunderstood because clearly the intellect remains functional in all sages. A more accurate way of pointing to what he talked about in this respect is attaining "non-abidance in mind." In this respect the intellect ceases to be dominant, and it becomes a servant rather than a master--something like a personal computer that simulates a meta-reality that can be manipulated for useful purposes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 9:40:29 GMT -5
Ramana mentions this as a result of enlightenment. But folks tend to take it literally as if the mind is an actual thing like a machine or a movie projector that gets blown up. The mind is a concept, a construct, an artificial delimiter that encapsulates thought so that we can say these are "our" thoughts because they are occurring in "our" mind. The mind is destroyed when you realize there is no actual mind. No such entity. Thoughts occur in the same place that rain storms occur, that life occurs. In us, what we are. People conceive of mind in many different ways. I've always used the term as synonymous with "intellect" or the operation of the frontal cortex--that part of the brain that generates ideas, images, and symbols and is responsible for "mental talk." Tolle and other contemporary ND sages suggest "getting out of one's head" by which they mean becoming free of attachment to ideas about the world so that one can interact with reality much like a small child--directly. I think Ramana's comments about "destroying" the mind are generally misunderstood because clearly the intellect remains functional in all sages. A more accurate way of pointing to what he talked about in this respect is attaining "non-abidance in mind." In this respect the intellect ceases to be dominant, and it becomes a servant rather than a master--something like a personal computer that simulates a meta-reality that can be manipulated for useful purposes. Mind is an artificial boundary, useful in a dualistic context. Sort of like the boundary between countries. It is used to delineate an object, called country, but there is no real object, it's a concept, just as there are no separate objects. A Tai chi form was taught to me in movements, pieces, but there are no separate movements. It's just one continues flow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 10:08:52 GMT -5
Ramana does it better. Remember Ramana said "ego" and "mind" are equivalent.
Q: How is the ego to be destroyed? A: Hold the ego first and then ask how it is to be destroyed. Who asks the question? It is the ego. This question is a sure way to cherish the ego and not to kill it. If you seek the ego you will find that it does not exist. That is the way to destroy it.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 14, 2019 10:28:37 GMT -5
Ramana does it better. Remember Ramana said "ego" and "mind" are equivalent. Q: How is the ego to be destroyed? A: Hold the ego first and then ask how it is to be destroyed. Who asks the question? It is the ego. This question is a sure way to cherish the ego and not to kill it. If you seek the ego you will find that it does not exist. That is the way to destroy it. Yes, but in that sense, mind can't be destroyed because it doesn't exist in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 10:32:51 GMT -5
Ramana does it better. Remember Ramana said "ego" and "mind" are equivalent. Q: How is the ego to be destroyed? A: Hold the ego first and then ask how it is to be destroyed. Who asks the question? It is the ego. This question is a sure way to cherish the ego and not to kill it. If you seek the ego you will find that it does not exist. That is the way to destroy it. Yes, but in that sense, mind can't be destroyed because it doesn't exist in the first place. True but this is what he means by "destroying the mind." You destroy the snake by realizing it's a rope.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 14, 2019 15:29:35 GMT -5
Ramana mentions this as a result of enlightenment. But folks tend to take it literally as if the mind is an actual thing like a machine or a movie projector that gets blown up. The mind is a concept, a construct, an artificial delimiter that encapsulates thought so that we can say these are "our" thoughts because they are occurring in "our" mind. The mind is destroyed when you realize there is no actual mind. No such entity. Thoughts occur in the same place that rain storms occur, that life occurs. In us, what we are. I think part of the issue is that folks learn to think of 'mind' as being in the head. I would say mind is in every cell of the body, every atom even. It just seems like mind is in the head because that's where the noise is concentrated. In this sense, I see mind as similar to intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jun 14, 2019 16:03:41 GMT -5
Ramana mentions this as a result of enlightenment. But folks tend to take it literally as if the mind is an actual thing like a machine or a movie projector that gets blown up. The mind is a concept, a construct, an artificial delimiter that encapsulates thought so that we can say these are "our" thoughts because they are occurring in "our" mind. The mind is destroyed when you realize there is no actual mind. No such entity. Thoughts occur in the same place that rain storms occur, that life occurs. In us, what we are. Mind is destroyed in the sense that something is destroyed when you no longer pay attention to it and therefore don’t notice it. Mind is destroyed in the sense that some genius idea you had in a dream is destroyed when, upon waking, it turns out to be utter gibberish.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 14, 2019 22:29:01 GMT -5
Ramana mentions this as a result of enlightenment. But folks tend to take it literally as if the mind is an actual thing like a machine or a movie projector that gets blown up. The mind is a concept, a construct, an artificial delimiter that encapsulates thought so that we can say these are "our" thoughts because they are occurring in "our" mind. The mind is destroyed when you realize there is no actual mind. No such entity. Thoughts occur in the same place that rain storms occur, that life occurs. In us, what we are. I think part of the issue is that folks learn to think of 'mind' as being in the head. I would say mind is in every cell of the body, every atom even. It just seems like mind is in the head because that's where the noise is concentrated. In this sense, I see mind as similar to intelligence. This is how I was conditioned to relate to the notion of mind -- and it goes deeper than just a mental exercise. Encountering Tolle, in this sense, was counter to that conditioning, so I certainly see the value in the way ZD conceives of it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 14, 2019 22:33:11 GMT -5
Yes, but in that sense, mind can't be destroyed because it doesn't exist in the first place. True but this is what he means by "destroying the mind." You destroy the snake by realizing it's a rope. Right, "see the false, as false", and then, what was appearing before keeps appearing, but the perspective is different. The distinction between mind and ego though, can be a useful one, as in, the mind can be a tool that's picked up and put down. It's possible to describe situations where ego is used the same way, but they're different from uses of mind to solve problems, learn and produce work.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 14, 2019 22:36:31 GMT -5
Ramana mentions this as a result of enlightenment. But folks tend to take it literally as if the mind is an actual thing like a machine or a movie projector that gets blown up. The mind is a concept, a construct, an artificial delimiter that encapsulates thought so that we can say these are "our" thoughts because they are occurring in "our" mind. The mind is destroyed when you realize there is no actual mind. No such entity. Thoughts occur in the same place that rain storms occur, that life occurs. In us, what we are. Mind is destroyed in the sense that something is destroyed when you no longer pay attention to it and therefore don’t notice it. Mind is destroyed in the sense that some genius idea you had in a dream is destroyed when, upon waking, it turns out to be utter gibberish. The destruction RM is referring to is the permanent cessation of the self-referential pattern of thought and emotion that involves entanglement with the ephemeral. Gotta' call it something, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jun 14, 2019 22:48:41 GMT -5
Mind is destroyed in the sense that something is destroyed when you no longer pay attention to it and therefore don’t notice it. Mind is destroyed in the sense that some genius idea you had in a dream is destroyed when, upon waking, it turns out to be utter gibberish. The destruction RM is referring to is the permanent cessation of the self-referential pattern of thought and emotion that involves entanglement with the ephemeral. Gotta' call it something, I guess. . I would describe it a bit differently... it's not exactly that the pattern ceases, I'd say, but that the entire mental complex -- all thoughts, feelings, perceptions, 'self-referential' or not -- only 'exists' when it can believe the categories by which it discerns and understands itself to be real. It can only accept those categories as real when the root assumption behind those categories, the foundation on which the entire mind is based -- that is, the separate I -- can be maintained. That separate I can only be maintained when it can believe itself to be an independent, boundaried entity. And that in turn is only possible when the space within which that I floats is concealed by ignorance. When the veil of ignorance is stripped away, exposing the background within which the I-thought floats, it can no longer maintain the belief that it is a boundaried entity, and all the mental categories, since they are built on that assumption, must then fall away. The mind can no longer take itself or any of the categories, including all of language and existence itself, to be meaningful. Nor is it meaningless, of course (that's another category). But in a very real sense the mind then can be said to cease to exist, since all the mental categories by which a statement like 'the mind exists' are now insupportable. Though perhaps it would ultimately be more accurate to say not that the mind ceased but that it never was to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 14, 2019 23:39:48 GMT -5
The destruction RM is referring to is the permanent cessation of the self-referential pattern of thought and emotion that involves entanglement with the ephemeral. Gotta' call it something, I guess. . I would describe it a bit differently... it's not exactly that the pattern ceases, I'd say, but that the entire mental complex -- all thoughts, feelings, perceptions, 'self-referential' or not -- only 'exists' when it can believe the categories by which it discerns and understands itself to be real. It can only accept those categories as real when the root assumption behind those categories, the foundation on which the entire mind is based -- that is, the separate I -- can be maintained. That separate I can only be maintained when it can believe itself to be an independent, boundaried entity. And that in turn is only possible when the space within which that I floats is concealed by ignorance. When the veil of ignorance is stripped away, exposing the background within which the I-thought floats, it can no longer maintain the belief that it is a boundaried entity, and all the mental categories, since they are built on that assumption, must then fall away. The mind can no longer take itself or any of the categories, including all of language and existence itself, to be meaningful. Nor is it meaningless, of course (that's another category). But in a very real sense the mind then can be said to cease to exist, since all the mental categories by which a statement like 'the mind exists' are now insupportable. Though perhaps it would ultimately be more accurate to say not that the mind ceased but that it never was to begin with. What I mean by that pattern definitely involves belief, and not just in an arid, "idea is true/false" sense of the term. But that's just the mechanics of the situation. These references to the veil of ignorance and the boundless backdrop to "I" implicate what can't be conceived in mechanical terms. Grace, surrender, and even destruction can be used to describe the cessation in terms of pointing, but there is no God to grant it, noone to wave the flag of surrender and any would-be destroyer is ever destined to failure.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 15, 2019 6:04:25 GMT -5
I think part of the issue is that folks learn to think of 'mind' as being in the head. I would say mind is in every cell of the body, every atom even. It just seems like mind is in the head because that's where the noise is concentrated. In this sense, I see mind as similar to intelligence. This is how I was conditioned to relate to the notion of mind -- and it goes deeper than just a mental exercise. Encountering Tolle, in this sense, was counter to that conditioning, so I certainly see the value in the way ZD conceives of it. yes, I'm not opposed to any of the definitions of 'mind' that are offered, they all have their time and place for discussion, and they also all perhaps have their limitation. 'Obliterate the mind' has its place, pointing beyond 'rational mind', 'mind' as a movement of thought....there are lots of ways of talking about it, which makes it one of the most interesting concepts. In one way 'mind' is as real as our arms and legs, in another sense, it's an abstraction in the way that 'consciousness' is. One thing I am cautious of, is when folks talk of 'mind' as 'real', but then the 'world' is not. I prefer 'mind' and 'world' to be in the same category or context.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jun 15, 2019 7:00:58 GMT -5
How I have always seen mind is that where there is mind there is self awareness and self awareness doesn’t have to be solely experienced via the mind-body, so the nature of the mind encompasses everything that awareness of self is and is in reflection of .
This is why I say the mind is both the canvas and the expression upon it, it is the mirror and the reflection that it portrays .
The mind cannot be prised from what you are of it .. and what you are of it as everyone knows is everything there is .
Consciousness, awareness, mind, matter and self don’t exist by themselves, it is a package deal lol .
This is why mind is more than just a movement of thought it is also the environment for thoughts to move, arise and be quietened ..
This is also why one can still be of the mind when there is the quieten of the mind, or a still mind as some like to say ..
|
|