|
Post by redglove on Sept 25, 2017 7:39:25 GMT -5
Not only is the mind not identical with the Self, the real implication of that is that the mind is not identical with -- the mind! Or rather, neither any particular thought nor the stream of thoughts as a whole is identical with any entity underlying those thoughts which wields agency, which is in control of itself.
Is a character in one frame of a movie truly in control of that character in the next?
The mind has solely the depth of an image reflected in a puddle. Meanwhile, therefore, the real Self appears to the mind as a discontinuity of the mind with itself. It is the silent pause, block, interruption. A continuous discontinuity of the mind with itself.
To whom does the realization occur that the mind is not the mind? To that same mind, of course, that mere ticker tape of thoughts, which brushes the Self like some animal approaches an electric fence, touching which it is paralyzed. This mind expands to the extent of its boundaries like waves lapping at the shore, and naturally at a certain point, touching the highest ground possible at highest tide, recedes. Every time. The mind, reaching beyond itself, touches the point at which its own perspective shifts to one in which it sees it never existed. Every time. And knows, and goes back to reassure itself to know what it knows again.
Eventually, these unruly waves no longer need to lick the highest point of shore to know their limits. They need less and less to reassure themselves of what they already know. They concede, condense, and quiet, and finally sit contained all by themselves, active and serene. As in fact they always were.
And then in fact both perspectives remain, one encompassed in the other. All the unserenity serenely contained -- as in fact it always was. Now the difference only being that the mind, knowing its limits, allows itself to enjoy its own waves. Now all the rage is there, but kept as tempest in a teapot, noiseless storm within the clearly-seen void.
All the benefits of life, and all the benefits of death. All the benefits of ignorance, and all the benefits of knowledge too. All mistakes are preserved, and seen finally to be both mistakes and not mistakes at all, cells in the self-exceeding, self-containing tree trunk of the truth.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2017 10:24:55 GMT -5
Not only is the mind not identical with the Self, the real implication of that is that the mind is not identical with -- the mind! Or rather, neither any particular thought nor the stream of thoughts as a whole is identical with any entity underlying those thoughts which wields agency, which is in control of itself. Is a character in one frame of a movie truly in control of that character in the next? The mind has solely the depth of an image reflected in a puddle. Meanwhile, therefore, the real Self appears to the mind as a discontinuity of the mind with itself. It is the silent pause, block, interruption. A continuous discontinuity of the mind with itself. To whom does the realization occur that the mind is not the mind? To that same mind, of course, that mere ticker tape of thoughts, which brushes the Self like some animal approaches an electric fence, touching which it is paralyzed. This mind expands to the extent of its boundaries like waves lapping at the shore, and naturally at a certain point, touching the highest ground possible at highest tide, recedes. Every time. The mind, reaching beyond itself, touches the point at which its own perspective shifts to one in which it sees it never existed. Every time. And knows, and goes back to reassure itself to know what it knows again. Eventually, these unruly waves no longer need to lick the highest point of shore to know their limits. They need less and less to reassure themselves of what they already know. They concede, condense, and quiet, and finally sit contained all by themselves, active and serene. As in fact they always were. And then in fact both perspectives remain, one encompassed in the other. All the unserenity serenely contained -- as in fact it always was. Now the difference only being that the mind, knowing its limits, allows itself to enjoy its own waves. Now all the rage is there, but kept as tempest in a teapot, noiseless storm within the clearly-seen void. All the benefits of life, and all the benefits of death. All the benefits of ignorance, and all the benefits of knowledge too. All mistakes are preserved, and seen finally to be both mistakes and not mistakes at all, cells in the self-exceeding, self-containing tree trunk of the truth. You state that the mind is not 'an entity which wields agency', and then go on to describe mind as an entity that the real Self appears to and can realize something about itself and has a perspective and reassures itself. If you view mind for what it is; a movement of thought, a creative tool of Intelligence, or of the Self if you prefer, then all this reifying of mind and paradox can be avoided.
|
|
|
Post by redglove on Sept 25, 2017 10:43:06 GMT -5
That's because there are "two" perspectives. The mind's perspective is that the mind is an entity. The "absolute" perspective is that the mind is not an entity. Neither perspective is perfectly correct without reference to the other. The mind is "not an entity" but it "appears to be one." To whom? To itself, i.e. a non-entity. But that's paradoxical. Which brings me to your other point.
The paradox cannot be avoided. On the border between one perspective and another, or rather between perspective and not-perspective itself... paradox is precisely that which cannot, when we talk in words, be avoided. Though there is less intelligent and more intelligent articulation of that paradox.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 25, 2017 13:35:11 GMT -5
Not only is the mind not identical with the Self, the real implication of that is that the mind is not identical with -- the mind! Or rather, neither any particular thought nor the stream of thoughts as a whole is identical with any entity underlying those thoughts which wields agency, which is in control of itself. Is a character in one frame of a movie truly in control of that character in the next? The mind has solely the depth of an image reflected in a puddle. Meanwhile, therefore, the real Self appears to the mind as a discontinuity of the mind with itself. It is the silent pause, block, interruption. A continuous discontinuity of the mind with itself. To whom does the realization occur that the mind is not the mind? To that same mind, of course, that mere ticker tape of thoughts, which brushes the Self like some animal approaches an electric fence, touching which it is paralyzed. This mind expands to the extent of its boundaries like waves lapping at the shore, and naturally at a certain point, touching the highest ground possible at highest tide, recedes. Every time. The mind, reaching beyond itself, touches the point at which its own perspective shifts to one in which it sees it never existed. Every time. And knows, and goes back to reassure itself to know what it knows again. Eventually, these unruly waves no longer need to lick the highest point of shore to know their limits. They need less and less to reassure themselves of what they already know. They concede, condense, and quiet, and finally sit contained all by themselves, active and serene. As in fact they always were. And then in fact both perspectives remain, one encompassed in the other. All the unserenity serenely contained -- as in fact it always was. Now the difference only being that the mind, knowing its limits, allows itself to enjoy its own waves. Now all the rage is there, but kept as tempest in a teapot, noiseless storm within the clearly-seen void. All the benefits of life, and all the benefits of death. All the benefits of ignorance, and all the benefits of knowledge too. All mistakes are preserved, and seen finally to be both mistakes and not mistakes at all, cells in the self-exceeding, self-containing tree trunk of the truth. One simplification of this that's come of the dialogs here in the past is a distinction between realization, on one hand, and the informing of mind that happens after realization, on the other. This comports with the point that realization isn't a personal accomplishment. The illusion of the person is the obstacle to realization, not what realizes. The mind of that person becomes informed of what happened in all sorts of ways on all manner of subjects, and that's all time-bound, relative, after the fact and specific to the conditioning operative at the instant of realization.
|
|
|
Post by redglove on Sept 25, 2017 14:43:48 GMT -5
One simplification of this that's come of the dialogs here in the past is a distinction between realization, on one hand, and the informing of mind that happens after realization, on the other. This comports with the point that realization isn't a personal accomplishment. The illusion of the person is the obstacle to realization, not what realizes. The mind of that person becomes informed of what happened in all sorts of ways on all manner of subjects, and that's all time-bound, relative, after the fact and specific to the conditioning operative at the instant of realization. But "realization" is only just that change in mind -- so in other words, realization doesn't truly exist. That is the realization, of course. It is precisely a time-bound, relative, after the fact, conditioning-specific experience of a dropping away of the normal mode of obscuring experience -- revealing clearly the background residuum, which we call timeless Truth. Realization is a change in the purity of mind such that it is capable of reflecting the Self. It is the mind seeing its own boundaries and suddenly dramatically quieting. Actually the dramatic quieting IS the seeing of its own boundaries IS the experience of the Self. What we call "realization" is, if anything, only the transition from an impure mind incapable of Self-reflection to a mind that is capable of such reflection. That reflection, of course, shows the mind to be illusory. That is of course why realization is not a personal accomplishment: it's because there is no person, NOT because realization is somehow completely non-mental. The Self was never bound and neither needs nor is capable of realizing or being the object of realization.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 25, 2017 15:46:00 GMT -5
Not only is the mind not identical with the Self, the real implication of that is that the mind is not identical with -- the mind! Or rather, neither any particular thought nor the stream of thoughts as a whole is identical with any entity underlying those thoughts which wields agency, which is in control of itself. Is a character in one frame of a movie truly in control of that character in the next? The mind has solely the depth of an image reflected in a puddle. Meanwhile, therefore, the real Self appears to the mind as a discontinuity of the mind with itself. It is the silent pause, block, interruption. No problem up to here.A continuous discontinuity of the mind with itself. I make a distinction between mind and consciousness. Mind is the thinking function. Consciousness is the awareness of the functioning of the mind. To whom does the realization occur that the mind is not the mind? To that same mind, of course, that mere ticker tape of thoughts, which brushes the Self like some animal approaches an electric fence, touching which it is paralyzed. No, the "realization" occurs in consciousness, which is outside the mind, "bigger" than the mind. This mind expands to the extent of its boundaries like waves lapping at the shore, and naturally at a certain point, touching the highest ground possible at highest tide, recedes. Every time. The mind, reaching beyond itself, touches the point at which its own perspective shifts to one in which it sees it never existed. Every time. And knows, and goes back to reassure itself to know what it knows again. No, it is consciousness which expands beyond the boundaries of the mind.Eventually, these unruly waves no longer need to lick the highest point of shore to know their limits. They need less and less to reassure themselves of what they already know. They concede, condense, and quiet, and finally sit contained all by themselves, active and serene. As in fact they always were. No, consciousness is not always there. Consciousness is what recedes, and we find ourselves back within the confines of the ordinary mind. And then in fact both perspectives remain, one encompassed in the other. All the unserenity serenely contained -- as in fact it always was. Now the difference only being that the mind, knowing its limits, allows itself to enjoy its own waves. Now all the rage is there, but kept as tempest in a teapot, noiseless storm within the clearly-seen void. No, mind can remember what had happened, can remember consciousness, but now-consciousness-isn't (there).All the benefits of life, and all the benefits of death. All the benefits of ignorance, and all the benefits of knowledge too. All mistakes are preserved, and seen finally to be both mistakes and not mistakes at all, cells in the self-exceeding, self-containing tree trunk of the truth. If it has not been apparent, I have a different view than most people here. I will edit your OP to reflect my view, and then comment on it. You could say that consciousness is the ~link~-to-Self.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 25, 2017 15:58:15 GMT -5
One simplification of this that's come of the dialogs here in the past is a distinction between realization, on one hand, and the informing of mind that happens after realization, on the other. This comports with the point that realization isn't a personal accomplishment. The illusion of the person is the obstacle to realization, not what realizes. The mind of that person becomes informed of what happened in all sorts of ways on all manner of subjects, and that's all time-bound, relative, after the fact and specific to the conditioning operative at the instant of realization. But "realization" is only just that change in mind -- so in other words, realization doesn't truly exist. That is the realization, of course. It is precisely a time-bound, relative, after the fact, conditioning-specific experience of a dropping away of the normal mode of obscuring experience -- revealing clearly the background residuum, which we call timeless Truth. Realization is a change in the purity of mind such that it is capable of reflecting the Self. It is the mind seeing its own boundaries and suddenly dramatically quieting. Actually the dramatic quieting IS the seeing of its own boundaries IS the experience of the Self. What we call "realization" is, if anything, only the transition from an impure mind incapable of Self-reflection to a mind that is capable of such reflection. That reflection, of course, shows the mind to be illusory. That is of course why realization is not a personal accomplishment: it's because there is no person, NOT because realization is somehow completely non-mental. The Self was never bound and neither needs nor is capable of realizing or being the object of realization. What you're calling realization here, would be the experiencing of a higher consciousness. See if that works. Substitute extraordinary consciousness for realization. (Recalling it's [this] consciousness that is the link to Self).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 25, 2017 16:02:23 GMT -5
Not only is the mind not identical with the Self, the real implication of that is that the mind is not identical with -- the mind! Or rather, neither any particular thought nor the stream of thoughts as a whole is identical with any entity underlying those thoughts which wields agency, which is in control of itself. Is a character in one frame of a movie truly in control of that character in the next? The mind has solely the depth of an image reflected in a puddle. Meanwhile, therefore, the real Self appears to the mind as a discontinuity of the mind with itself. It is the silent pause, block, interruption. A continuous discontinuity of the mind with itself. To whom does the realization occur that the mind is not the mind? To that same mind, of course, that mere ticker tape of thoughts, which brushes the Self like some animal approaches an electric fence, touching which it is paralyzed. This mind expands to the extent of its boundaries like waves lapping at the shore, and naturally at a certain point, touching the highest ground possible at highest tide, recedes. Every time. The mind, reaching beyond itself, touches the point at which its own perspective shifts to one in which it sees it never existed. Every time. And knows, and goes back to reassure itself to know what it knows again. Eventually, these unruly waves no longer need to lick the highest point of shore to know their limits. They need less and less to reassure themselves of what they already know. They concede, condense, and quiet, and finally sit contained all by themselves, active and serene. As in fact they always were. And then in fact both perspectives remain, one encompassed in the other. All the unserenity serenely contained -- as in fact it always was. Now the difference only being that the mind, knowing its limits, allows itself to enjoy its own waves. Now all the rage is there, but kept as tempest in a teapot, noiseless storm within the clearly-seen void. All the benefits of life, and all the benefits of death. All the benefits of ignorance, and all the benefits of knowledge too. All mistakes are preserved, and seen finally to be both mistakes and not mistakes at all, cells in the self-exceeding, self-containing tree trunk of the truth. You state that the mind is not 'an entity which wields agency', and then go on to describe mind as an entity that the real Self appears to and can realize something about itself and has a perspective and reassures itself. If you view mind for what it is; a movement of thought, a creative tool of Intelligence, or of the Self if you prefer, then all this reifying of mind and paradox can be avoided. The paradox is avoided if you realize that something beyond-the-mind becomes present (consciousness, see posts above).
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2017 19:23:43 GMT -5
That's because there are "two" perspectives. The mind's perspective is that the mind is an entity. The "absolute" perspective is that the mind is not an entity. Neither perspective is perfectly correct without reference to the other. The mind is "not an entity" but it "appears to be one." To whom? To itself, i.e. a non-entity. But that's paradoxical. Which brings me to your other point. The paradox cannot be avoided. On the border between one perspective and another, or rather between perspective and not-perspective itself... paradox is precisely that which cannot, when we talk in words, be avoided. Though there is less intelligent and more intelligent articulation of that paradox. In my view, paradox is mental confusion. It's not a problem with words. I mean to point out that confusion in my comments. (What you call perspective I call context.) The mind appears to be an entity, but not to mind. Mind would have to actually be an entity for anything to appear to it: for mind to be taken in by the illusion of being an entity, which in that case would not actually be an illusion. What that illusion appears to is existence itself. That's what everything appears to. Everything appears to what you really are.
|
|
|
Post by redglove on Sept 25, 2017 19:42:08 GMT -5
If it has not been apparent, I have a different view than most people here. I will edit your OP to reflect my view, and then comment on it.
I'm not exactly sure we're disagreeing. We might be, but I'm not sure. Either consciousness is conditioned or it isn't. If it is unconditioned consciousness it is the Self -- eternal, unchanging, and the space within which everything else occurs. The Self obviously cannot expand beyond any bounds or recede -- all boundaries are within it. The only kind of consciousness that can "expand beyond the boundaries of the mind" and then "recede" is conditioned consciousness. Conditioned consciousness by definition requires conditioning, i.e. thought, in other words the mind. So the consciousness that you speak of may not be "the mind" in the usual intellectual sense, but it is a subtle thought of duality. It is, in other words, the ego. It is the thought of boundary, of separation. By "expansion" what is really happening is that the mind comes close to a standstill. The ego, which projects experience through a bounded idea of a subject and a bounded idea of an object, depends on continuously thinking. Thinking is what sustains the boundaries by constantly distracting conditioned consciousness from noticing its own background, so to say. When the mind stops thinking, the ego suddenly reflects the boundless Self. It loses its normal sense of being a subject. When ego/conditioned consciousness reflects the boundless Self -- it feels as if there is expansion. Such reflection is simply the conscious experience of the Self in the waking state. This experience is actually there every second without pause; it's simply hidden by the thoughts that overlay it. When attention is narrowed again by thought, that conditioned consciousness once again assumes its boundaries and "recedes." So it is only conditioned consciousness that experiences liberation -- a condition in which that same consciousness realizes it isn't what it thought it was and that thus liberation is in fact an incoherent idea. So are we disagreeing? "There is no liberation either. It could be only if there was bondage. There was really no bondage and so, it follows, there is no liberation." -Ramana
|
|
|
Post by redglove on Sept 25, 2017 19:43:58 GMT -5
That's because there are "two" perspectives. The mind's perspective is that the mind is an entity. The "absolute" perspective is that the mind is not an entity. Neither perspective is perfectly correct without reference to the other. The mind is "not an entity" but it "appears to be one." To whom? To itself, i.e. a non-entity. But that's paradoxical. Which brings me to your other point. The paradox cannot be avoided. On the border between one perspective and another, or rather between perspective and not-perspective itself... paradox is precisely that which cannot, when we talk in words, be avoided. Though there is less intelligent and more intelligent articulation of that paradox. In my view, paradox is mental confusion. It's not a problem with words. I mean to point out that confusion in my comments. (What you call perspective I call context.) The mind appears to be an entity, but not to mind. Mind would have to actually be an entity for anything to appear to it: for mind to be taken in by the illusion of being an entity, which in that case would not actually be an illusion. What that illusion appears to is existence itself. That's what everything appears to. Everything appears to what you really are. I mostly agree. But what happens is that the Self performs a magic trick when it creates and experiences a thought-which-thinks-itself-an-entity, a kind of meta-thought through which duality is experienced. The one-without-a-second Self creates a thought that allows that Self to experience duality. That magic trick is most certainly incomprehensible and paradoxical, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Sept 25, 2017 20:30:45 GMT -5
The mind is not identical with the brain or the brain is not identical with the mind? Which is which? I am confused.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2017 21:16:02 GMT -5
You state that the mind is not 'an entity which wields agency', and then go on to describe mind as an entity that the real Self appears to and can realize something about itself and has a perspective and reassures itself. If you view mind for what it is; a movement of thought, a creative tool of Intelligence, or of the Self if you prefer, then all this reifying of mind and paradox can be avoided. The paradox is avoided if you realize that something beyond-the-mind becomes present (consciousness, see posts above). Yeah, though I would say 'always present'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2017 21:42:12 GMT -5
In my view, paradox is mental confusion. It's not a problem with words. I mean to point out that confusion in my comments. (What you call perspective I call context.) The mind appears to be an entity, but not to mind. Mind would have to actually be an entity for anything to appear to it: for mind to be taken in by the illusion of being an entity, which in that case would not actually be an illusion. What that illusion appears to is existence itself. That's what everything appears to. Everything appears to what you really are. I mostly agree. But what happens is that the Self performs a magic trick when it creates and experiences a thought-which-thinks-itself-an-entity, a kind of meta-thought through which duality is experienced. The one-without-a-second Self creates a thought that allows that Self to experience duality. That magic trick is most certainly incomprehensible and paradoxical, IMO. Well, the magic dissipates when you realize it is Self having a thought. I'm infamous around here for saying God falls into his own dream.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2017 21:44:29 GMT -5
The mind is not identical with the brain or the brain is not identical with the mind? Which is which? I am confused. You mean, does A=B or does B=A??
|
|