|
Post by zendancer on Jun 15, 2019 7:49:55 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, for me, Tolle explicated the way I had always understood the term--as the brain function that allows humans to think about the world, make distinctions, replicate the distinctions with images, symbolize the distinctions with words and ideas, and talk about the distinctions both to other people and to one's self (mind talk). Tolle had suffered from incessant mind talk prior to the event that freed him from his thoughts, so his teaching focused upon helping other people recognize the effects of mind talk and learning to shift attention away from mind talk to the world beyond distinction. Probably because I, too, had lost all peace of mind as a result of incessant mind talk, and only realized what had happened after I began meditating, I identified with Tolle's approach to that subject. Byron Katie and most other contemporary ND sages also focus on mind talk, abstract thoughts about the world, and ways of becoming free of thoughts that typically restrict one's psychological freedom. The "intellect" is how scientists usually distinguish the pre-frontal cortex that allows abstract thought, and many of us think of mind as synonymous with the intellect. Intelligence is obviously a distributed phenomena, but until humans evolved a pre-frontal cortex I doubt any sense of selfhood existed as an abstraction. There are many other ways to define "mind," all of which are abstract, but I prefer the flavor of "mind as intellect" because it's the reflecting function of the intellect that gives rise to the sense of selfhood and the sense of separateness in general.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 8:15:33 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. What Ramana is suggesting is that mind is a useful but ultimately artificial distinction. I would say the same is true of the borders between countries. They are conceptual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 8:34:55 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 .. For me it's slightly different. You see words on the screen which are real because they are part of Self. I see it as dots on a screen that apear to form words to me, but to my birds are just dots. There are no words. Mind is the segmenter and parser of the world, the giver of meaning, what turns no-thing into something. But like the words it is a concept.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 15, 2019 8:40:09 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. What Ramana is suggesting is that mind is a useful but ultimately artificial distinction. I would say the same is true of the borders between countries. They are conceptual. yes I see his point and yours there. Given what Ramana is pointing to, it's probably a useful way to talk about it. Then again, I'm not sure it's any more 'artificial' than the distinction between arm and leg. We won't ever stop talking about 'mind' just as we won't ever stop talking about 'arms and legs'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 15, 2019 8:43:06 GMT -5
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, for me, Tolle explicated the way I had always understood the term--as the brain function that allows humans to think about the world, make distinctions, replicate the distinctions with images, symbolize the distinctions with words and ideas, and talk about the distinctions both to other people and to one's self (mind talk). Tolle had suffered from incessant mind talk prior to the event that freed him from his thoughts, so his teaching focused upon helping other people recognize the effects of mind talk and learning to shift attention away from mind talk to the world beyond distinction. Probably because I, too, had lost all peace of mind as a result of incessant mind talk, and only realized what had happened after I began meditating, I identified with Tolle's approach to that subject. Byron Katie and most other contemporary ND sages also focus on mind talk, abstract thoughts about the world, and ways of becoming free of thoughts that typically restrict one's psychological freedom. The "intellect" is how scientists usually distinguish the pre-frontal cortex that allows abstract thought, and many of us think of mind as synonymous with the intellect. Intelligence is obviously a distributed phenomena, but until humans evolved a pre-frontal cortex I doubt any sense of selfhood existed as an abstraction. There are many other ways to define "mind," all of which are abstract, but I prefer the flavor of "mind as intellect" because it's the reflecting function of the intellect that gives rise to the sense of selfhood and the sense of separateness in general. Where would 'unconscious (or subconscious) mind' fit into your understanding here?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 15, 2019 8:47:56 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 .. For me it's slightly different. You see words on the screen which are real because they are part of Self. I see it as dots on a screen that apear to form words to me, but to my birds are just dots. There are no words. Mind is the segmenter and parser of the world, the giver of meaning, what turns no-thing into something. But like the words it is a concept. Where does 'mind' as segmenter and parser and giver of meaning, live? Where's it found in the individual (or 'appearance of individual' if you prefer)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 9:02:44 GMT -5
What happens at times and one of the dangers of Advaita is the "no suffering" carrot is perceived as a magical pill. Realization is then used as a fulcrum to lighten the burden life is setting on you. It becomes a less effective form of valium. You get folks saying I've had a horrrid day, but it's not that bad because it isn't real. There is a lot of dancing and pretending. If the burden is heavy enough, it will break the delusion and inevitably it will be heavy enough. Once this happens either the person says this is all BS and rejects the truth or they will just give, surrender. Open up. The ego will crack like a hard shelled nut. There will be nothing left to hold on to, nothing left to put back together. The dry conceptual knowledge of what you thought was reality will be very different then. Very different indeed. There will be nothing left.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 15, 2019 9:16:10 GMT -5
What happens at times and one of the dangers of Advaita is the "no suffering" carrot is perceived as a magical pill. Realization is then used as a fulcrum to lighten the burden life is setting on you. It becomes a less effective form of valium. You get folks saying I've had a horrrid day, but it's not that bad because it isn't real. There is a lot of dancing and pretending. If the burden is heavy enough, it will break the delusion and inevitably it will be heavy enough. Once this happens either the person says this is all BS and rejects the truth or they will just give, surrender. Open up. The ego will crack like a hard shelled nut. There will be nothing left to hold on to, nothing left to put back together. The dry conceptual knowledge of what you thought was reality will be very different then. Very different indeed. There will be nothing left. I can relate to the 'nothing left'. There was a book some years ago called 'Disappearance of the Universe' which very much spoke to what I was going through at the time. I do believe that there is an experiential 'void' or sorts (which can be talked about in different words). But, at this point, I see it as another 'state'. I even see what Niz and Ramana point to as another 'state'. 'It' is another state. Does that render the teaching and pointing worthless? Hell no. But the ultimate 'goal' is the point at which no-one is even talking about 'it' or pointing to 'it'. THAT'S the point when spiritual rubber has actually hit the road, and 'spirituality' has gone because it's now an accepted fact of reality. For as long as we are talking about 'it' and pointing to 'it', there is a level of delusion happening, which I am part of too. But surrender is such that delusion happens. Sometimes our delusion serves others. The ultimate truth here is that life is 'real', and 'it' is an illusion. Laughter won't be able to ignore this one
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 9:26:49 GMT -5
For me it's slightly different. You see words on the screen which are real because they are part of Self. I see it as dots on a screen that apear to form words to me, but to my birds are just dots. There are no words. Mind is the segmenter and parser of the world, the giver of meaning, what turns no-thing into something. But like the words it is a concept. Where does 'mind' as segmenter and parser and giver of meaning, live? Where's it found in the individual (or 'appearance of individual' if you prefer)? When you find it, let me know where it is. I don't believe it exists. Like Ramana says if you look for it, you won't find it. If I put you in a field on the border between Scotland and England and I asked you to tell me where the border was, without a GPS or astrolabe, could you mark it. Yet there is a country called Scotland and folks willing to die to make it so. But Scotland is in your heads and your hearts. There are no markers on the actual ground except those folks make so. Mind are the mechanisms that objectify reality, segment and parse it. Some would say it's in our head, but that is plainly absurd to me.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 15, 2019 9:45:24 GMT -5
Where does 'mind' as segmenter and parser and giver of meaning, live? Where's it found in the individual (or 'appearance of individual' if you prefer)? When you find it, let me know where it is. I don't believe it exists. Like Ramana says if you look for it, you won't find it. If I put you in a field on the border between Scotland and England and I asked you to tell me where the border was, without a GPS or astrolabe, could you mark it. Yet there is a country called Scotland and folks willing to die to make it so. But Scotland is in your heads and your hearts. There are no markers on the actual ground except those folks make so. Mind are the mechanisms that objectify reality, segment and parse it. Some would say it's in our head, but that is plainly absurd to me. Well, as I said, I consider 'mind' to be in every cell of the body. I do agree I can't find it because it's not a 'thing'... I can't put it under the microscope and see it, in this sense it is 'made up', But then again, so is 'leg' and 'arm' in their own way. Scotland/England are made up, but then again, so is the land mass in contrast to the ocean mass. So I can understand, what difference do you think it makes that you can't find it under a microscope?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 9:46:55 GMT -5
What happens at times and one of the dangers of Advaita is the "no suffering" carrot is perceived as a magical pill. Realization is then used as a fulcrum to lighten the burden life is setting on you. It becomes a less effective form of valium. You get folks saying I've had a horrrid day, but it's not that bad because it isn't real. There is a lot of dancing and pretending. If the burden is heavy enough, it will break the delusion and inevitably it will be heavy enough. Once this happens either the person says this is all BS and rejects the truth or they will just give, surrender. Open up. The ego will crack like a hard shelled nut. There will be nothing left to hold on to, nothing left to put back together. The dry conceptual knowledge of what you thought was reality will be very different then. Very different indeed. There will be nothing left. I can relate to the 'nothing left'. There was a book some years ago called 'Disappearance of the Universe' which very much spoke to what I was going through at the time. I do believe that there is an experiential 'void' or sorts (which can be talked about in different words). But, at this point, I see it as another 'state'. I even see what Niz and Ramana point to as another 'state'. 'It' is another state. Does that render the teaching and pointing worthless? Hell no. But the ultimate 'goal' is the point at which no-one is even talking about 'it' or pointing to 'it'. THAT'S the point when spiritual rubber has actually hit the road, and 'spirituality' has gone because it's now an accepted fact of reality. For as long as we are talking about 'it' and pointing to 'it', there is a level of delusion happening, which I am part of too. But surrender is such that delusion happens. Sometimes our delusion serves others. The ultimate truth here is that life is 'real', and 'it' is an illusion. Laughter won't be able to ignore this one There is a default state, the natural state, where there is room for all others. I'm just here to keep the mind entertained enough to keep from mischief. Pleasure. In truth it feels like family here. I do miss the froggies. They're great fun to argue with. I try not to take the mean things they say personally. Words can be useful pointers, but it takes much more, that internal rigorous search. Surrender is the natural state, I would say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 9:55:35 GMT -5
When you find it, let me know where it is. I don't believe it exists. Like Ramana says if you look for it, you won't find it. If I put you in a field on the border between Scotland and England and I asked you to tell me where the border was, without a GPS or astrolabe, could you mark it. Yet there is a country called Scotland and folks willing to die to make it so. But Scotland is in your heads and your hearts. There are no markers on the actual ground except those folks make so. Mind are the mechanisms that objectify reality, segment and parse it. Some would say it's in our head, but that is plainly absurd to me. Well, as I said, I consider 'mind' to be in every cell of the body. I do agree I can't find it because it's not a 'thing'... I can't put it under the microscope and see it, in this sense it is 'made up', But then again, so is 'leg' and 'arm' in their own way. Scotland/England are made up, but then again, so is the land mass in contrast to the ocean mass. So I can understand, what difference do you think it makes that you can't find it under a microscope? No difference. That's the beauty of it. Like Wallace Stevens wrote. "Beauty is momentary in the mind, the fitful tracing of a portal, but in the flesh, it is immortal." I think no one loves life more than one who realizes it is a dance of nothing.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 15, 2019 9:56:56 GMT -5
I can relate to the 'nothing left'. There was a book some years ago called 'Disappearance of the Universe' which very much spoke to what I was going through at the time. I do believe that there is an experiential 'void' or sorts (which can be talked about in different words). But, at this point, I see it as another 'state'. I even see what Niz and Ramana point to as another 'state'. 'It' is another state. Does that render the teaching and pointing worthless? Hell no. But the ultimate 'goal' is the point at which no-one is even talking about 'it' or pointing to 'it'. THAT'S the point when spiritual rubber has actually hit the road, and 'spirituality' has gone because it's now an accepted fact of reality. For as long as we are talking about 'it' and pointing to 'it', there is a level of delusion happening, which I am part of too. But surrender is such that delusion happens. Sometimes our delusion serves others. The ultimate truth here is that life is 'real', and 'it' is an illusion. Laughter won't be able to ignore this one There is a default state, the natural state, where there is room for all others. I'm just here to keep the mind entertained enough to keep from mischief. Pleasure. In truth it feels like family here. I do miss the froggies. They're great fun to argue with. I try not to take the mean things they say personally. Words can be useful pointers, but it takes much more, that internal rigorous search. Surrender is the natural state, I would say. I have no probs with the idea of 'natural state', I think it's useful. But if we really are 'living' the natural state, then we shouldn't even know it or be talking about it. Like the animals. We talk about it out of our own non-seeking. I don't miss talking to E though I sometimes miss taking about spiritual stuff in general.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 15, 2019 10:02:30 GMT -5
Well, as I said, I consider 'mind' to be in every cell of the body. I do agree I can't find it because it's not a 'thing'... I can't put it under the microscope and see it, in this sense it is 'made up', But then again, so is 'leg' and 'arm' in their own way. Scotland/England are made up, but then again, so is the land mass in contrast to the ocean mass. So I can understand, what difference do you think it makes that you can't find it under a microscope? No difference. That's the beauty of it. Like Wallace Stevens wrote. "Beauty is momentary in the mind, the fitful tracing of a portal, but in the flesh, it is immortal." I think no one loves life more than one who realizes it is a dance of nothing. As a new age dude, I would say that the true gift of this realm , is being able to have the exquisite experience of 'realizing' the perfection of all that is. Or 'realizing' unconditional love to be the truth. And so there is a gift in the experience of recognizing delusion. The existential suffering comes with a built in gift. That's why we hang about spiritual forums I suspect. We like seeing delusion because then we get to see clarity. Because if 'realization' is a fact of our experience, and a fact of our collective reality, then it would be wonderful in its own way, but the particular gift of this realm, is gone.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 15, 2019 10:53:18 GMT -5
Yes, for me, Tolle explicated the way I had always understood the term--as the brain function that allows humans to think about the world, make distinctions, replicate the distinctions with images, symbolize the distinctions with words and ideas, and talk about the distinctions both to other people and to one's self (mind talk). Tolle had suffered from incessant mind talk prior to the event that freed him from his thoughts, so his teaching focused upon helping other people recognize the effects of mind talk and learning to shift attention away from mind talk to the world beyond distinction. Probably because I, too, had lost all peace of mind as a result of incessant mind talk, and only realized what had happened after I began meditating, I identified with Tolle's approach to that subject. Byron Katie and most other contemporary ND sages also focus on mind talk, abstract thoughts about the world, and ways of becoming free of thoughts that typically restrict one's psychological freedom. The "intellect" is how scientists usually distinguish the pre-frontal cortex that allows abstract thought, and many of us think of mind as synonymous with the intellect. Intelligence is obviously a distributed phenomena, but until humans evolved a pre-frontal cortex I doubt any sense of selfhood existed as an abstraction. There are many other ways to define "mind," all of which are abstract, but I prefer the flavor of "mind as intellect" because it's the reflecting function of the intellect that gives rise to the sense of selfhood and the sense of separateness in general. Where would 'unconscious (or subconscious) mind' fit into your understanding here? From my POV I see subconscious mental activity as that which underlies the intellect. When the intellect is quiescent (no conscious thoughts occurring), the body continues to function intelligently, and the world in known and interacted with non-conceptually in the same way that little children see and interact with it. IOW, I see the intellect similarly to Chilton Pierce--as a secondary program that creates an imaginary meta-reality that most people mistake for reality. When the intellect is not engaged, the primary program is the only thing functioning, and this is what Zen calls living in a state of "no mind."
|
|