|
Post by laughter on Aug 11, 2019 12:56:58 GMT -5
Re: destroying the mind, there are several definitions in the dictionary - 'to destroy' can either mean a) to extinguish or annihilate or b) to defeat or subdue. Definition a) obviously doesn't make sense, but definition b) does make some sense. Just my 2 cents. Sekida covers the term "self-mastery", and makes it clear (in his way ), that it's not a conquest, it's not a domination, it's not winning a battle, but rather, the cessation of opposition. It's only ever ego that would look to fight and extinguish ego, and that was what RM meant with his quip about the thief impersonating a cop.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 11, 2019 13:01:13 GMT -5
Re: destroying the mind, there are several definitions in the dictionary - 'to destroy' can either mean a) to extinguish or annihilate or b) to defeat or subdue. Definition a) obviously doesn't make sense, but definition b) does make some sense. Just my 2 cents. "Q: How to get rid of the mind? A: Is it the mind that wants to kill itself? The mind cannot kill itself. So your business is to find the real nature of the mind. Then you will know that there is no mind. When the Self is sought, the mind is nowhere. Abiding in the Self, one need not worry about the mind." The quote above is from a Ramana dialog in Godman's book. He talks about destroying the ego as well which Godman says Ramana used "ego" and "mind" interchangeably. Ramana basically argues that there is no mind upon inspection, it is merely a concept. Does he ever put it exactly that way: "only a concept"? A concept is static, but mind is a process.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2019 15:31:30 GMT -5
"Q: How to get rid of the mind? A: Is it the mind that wants to kill itself? The mind cannot kill itself. So your business is to find the real nature of the mind. Then you will know that there is no mind. When the Self is sought, the mind is nowhere. Abiding in the Self, one need not worry about the mind." The quote above is from a Ramana dialog in Godman's book. He talks about destroying the ego as well which Godman says Ramana used "ego" and "mind" interchangeably. Ramana basically argues that there is no mind upon inspection, it is merely a concept. Does he ever put it exactly that way: "only a concept"? A concept is static, but mind is a process. He calls it an idea, a collection of thoughts, never seen the word process in his dialog. That sounds like something a code slinger would call the mind.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2019 18:18:43 GMT -5
Re: destroying the mind, there are several definitions in the dictionary - 'to destroy' can either mean a) to extinguish or annihilate or b) to defeat or subdue. Definition a) obviously doesn't make sense, but definition b) does make some sense. Just my 2 cents. "Q: How to get rid of the mind? A: Is it the mind that wants to kill itself? The mind cannot kill itself. So your business is to find the real nature of the mind. Then you will know that there is no mind. When the Self is sought, the mind is nowhere. Abiding in the Self, one need not worry about the mind." The quote above is from a Ramana dialog in Godman's book. He talks about destroying the ego as well which Godman says Ramana used "ego" and "mind" interchangeably. Ramana basically argues that there is no mind upon inspection, it is merely a concept.
Then it is not destroyed, or even defeated. It is simply seen for the belief it is.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 11, 2019 18:30:39 GMT -5
Does he ever put it exactly that way: "only a concept"? A concept is static, but mind is a process. He calls it an idea, a collection of thoughts, never seen the word process in his dialog. That sounds like something a code slinger would call the mind. As opposed to somebody who never worked for a living? I suppose I could read everything he had to say and put up the quotes that would explain how he didn't just dismiss mind as a concept, but that would be pointless.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 11, 2019 21:02:59 GMT -5
Re: destroying the mind, there are several definitions in the dictionary - 'to destroy' can either mean a) to extinguish or annihilate or b) to defeat or subdue. Definition a) obviously doesn't make sense, but definition b) does make some sense. Just my 2 cents. "Q: How to get rid of the mind? A: Is it the mind that wants to kill itself? The mind cannot kill itself. So your business is to find the real nature of the mind. Then you will know that there is no mind. When the Self is sought, the mind is nowhere. Abiding in the Self, one need not worry about the mind." The quote above is from a Ramana dialog in Godman's book. He talks about destroying the ego as well which Godman says Ramana used "ego" and "mind" interchangeably. Ramana basically argues that there is no mind upon inspection, it is merely a concept. What he describes there is seeing/realizing things for what they are, i.e. seeing the false as false and the real as real (as opposed to seeing the false as real and the real as false when identified as a person). That's what SR is in a nutshell. So whatever gets 'destroyed' (if you want to insist on using that word), it's not the mind and it's also not ego - it's a (mis)perception that gets corrected (or 'destroyed').
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 11, 2019 21:10:56 GMT -5
Re: destroying the mind, there are several definitions in the dictionary - 'to destroy' can either mean a) to extinguish or annihilate or b) to defeat or subdue. Definition a) obviously doesn't make sense, but definition b) does make some sense. Just my 2 cents. Sekida covers the term "self-mastery", and makes it clear (in his way ), that it's not a conquest, it's not a domination, it's not winning a battle, but rather, the cessation of opposition. It's only ever ego that would look to fight and extinguish ego, and that was what RM meant with his quip about the thief impersonating a cop. Yeah, basically ego and mind remain untouched. Which means 'to destroy' in the sense of extinguishing makes sense in no context; in the sense of subduing, however, it does make sense in the context of meditation/yoga. But that's not the SR context.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 11, 2019 21:17:28 GMT -5
"Q: How to get rid of the mind? A: Is it the mind that wants to kill itself? The mind cannot kill itself. So your business is to find the real nature of the mind. Then you will know that there is no mind. When the Self is sought, the mind is nowhere. Abiding in the Self, one need not worry about the mind." The quote above is from a Ramana dialog in Godman's book. He talks about destroying the ego as well which Godman says Ramana used "ego" and "mind" interchangeably. Ramana basically argues that there is no mind upon inspection, it is merely a concept.
Then it is not destroyed, or even defeated. It is simply seen for the belief it is. Right. That's why - strictly speaking - nothing happens (no transformation, no becoming, no attainment, no new knowledge acquired etc.); just seeing what is for what it is and what has always been so.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 11, 2019 21:19:27 GMT -5
Sekida covers the term "self-mastery", and makes it clear (in his way ), that it's not a conquest, it's not a domination, it's not winning a battle, but rather, the cessation of opposition. It's only ever ego that would look to fight and extinguish ego, and that was what RM meant with his quip about the thief impersonating a cop. Yeah, basically ego and mind remain untouched. Which means 'to destroy' in the sense of extinguishing makes sense in no context; in the sense of subduing, however, it does make sense in the context of meditation/yoga. But that's not the SR context. I'm fine with the notion of extinction in terms of SR, because SR is the cessation of a pattern of thought and emotion that is the core of the false sense of identification with the ephemeral.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2019 22:37:18 GMT -5
"Q: How to get rid of the mind? A: Is it the mind that wants to kill itself? The mind cannot kill itself. So your business is to find the real nature of the mind. Then you will know that there is no mind. When the Self is sought, the mind is nowhere. Abiding in the Self, one need not worry about the mind." The quote above is from a Ramana dialog in Godman's book. He talks about destroying the ego as well which Godman says Ramana used "ego" and "mind" interchangeably. Ramana basically argues that there is no mind upon inspection, it is merely a concept. What he describes there is seeing/realizing things for what they are, i.e. seeing the false as false and the real as real (as opposed to seeing the false as real and the real as false when identified as a person). That's what SR is in a nutshell. So whatever gets 'destroyed' (if you want to insist on using that word), it's not the mind and it's also not ego - it's a (mis)perception that gets corrected (or 'destroyed'). You are correct. Ramana uses the term "destroy". It does not come from me. But as you and others pointed out, you can't destroy what never existed.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 11, 2019 23:00:12 GMT -5
Yeah, basically ego and mind remain untouched. Which means 'to destroy' in the sense of extinguishing makes sense in no context; in the sense of subduing, however, it does make sense in the context of meditation/yoga. But that's not the SR context. I'm fine with the notion of extinction in terms of SR, because SR is the cessation of a pattern of thought and emotion that is the core of the false sense of identification with the ephemeral. Okay, I think I've said something similar recently, that some aspect of self disappears. But that's not extinction of mind or ego, right?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 11, 2019 23:03:22 GMT -5
I'm fine with the notion of extinction in terms of SR, because SR is the cessation of a pattern of thought and emotion that is the core of the false sense of identification with the ephemeral. Okay, I think I've said something similar recently, that some aspect of self disappears. But that's not extinction of mind or ego, right? Not the way I think of it, no.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 11, 2019 23:05:21 GMT -5
What he describes there is seeing/realizing things for what they are, i.e. seeing the false as false and the real as real (as opposed to seeing the false as real and the real as false when identified as a person). That's what SR is in a nutshell. So whatever gets 'destroyed' (if you want to insist on using that word), it's not the mind and it's also not ego - it's a (mis)perception that gets corrected (or 'destroyed'). You are correct. Ramana uses the term "destroy". It does not come from me. But as you and others pointed out, you can't destroy what never existed. That's not what I'm saying. To me, mind and ego do exist (that's why we talk about it), but they don't exist in their own right. There's no need to touch this. It has to be seen for what it is. That's all. That will make all the difference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 8:02:26 GMT -5
You are correct. Ramana uses the term "destroy". It does not come from me. But as you and others pointed out, you can't destroy what never existed. That's not what I'm saying. To me, mind and ego do exist (that's why we talk about it), but they don't exist in their own right. There's no need to touch this. It has to be seen for what it is. That's all. That will make all the difference. According to Ramana, there is no mind. You're saying in the subject/object context there is. I see these kinds of statements and debates as "concessions" to the intellect. Typically, I avoid them. To me, it's not about what you think or say, but how you live. This is why when Adyashanti was telling his sensei about his kensho experience, she asked him how he's getting along with his children.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 12, 2019 9:11:22 GMT -5
That's not what I'm saying. To me, mind and ego do exist (that's why we talk about it), but they don't exist in their own right. There's no need to touch this. It has to be seen for what it is. That's all. That will make all the difference. According to Ramana, there is no mind. You're saying in the subject/object context there is. I see these kinds of statements and debates as "concessions" to the intellect. Typically, I avoid them. To me, it's not about what you think or say, but how you live. This is why when Adyashanti was telling his sensei about his kensho experience, she asked him how he's getting along with his children. Yes, but it helps to remember that there are two Zen traditions. Adya was in the tradition that typically refuses to acknowledge or even talk about kensho. The other tradition, as well as many Advaita traditions, acknowledge kensho and celebrate it because it can be a breakthrough that usually results in significant realizations. In Rinzai Zen terminology kensho is an event wherein there is "seeing into one's true nature." Using E.'s terminology, kensho is a realization that reveals what is NOT so--that reality is NOT what one imagined it was. The most common realizations that result from kensho include (1) "what is" is infinite, and (2) "what is" is a unified whole.
|
|