|
Post by krsnaraja on Sept 25, 2017 23:18:53 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?? Where did you get that idea?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 26, 2017 1:46:28 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. Realization is a change in the purity of mind such that it is capable of reflecting the Self. There is no reflection of Self . There is what you are being that has no reflection . What is reflected?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 26, 2017 6:38:44 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 I will go into this more later (dislike posting on phone), but ego cannot "reflect the boundless Self". Ego and Self are mutually exclusive. Was there an ego when you were born? No, for me that's obvious. So there a something, before ego. This something is what can ~touch~ Self (or vice versa). This something is what-can-become conscious(ness). This is what can become free, no, it is not conditioned. What were ~you~ before ego?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 26, 2017 7:49:42 GMT -5
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'. Agreed. What we are is beyond mind, includes mind, and is always present.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 26, 2017 7:52:54 GMT -5
Realization is a change in the purity of mind such that it is capable of reflecting the Self. There is no reflection of Self . There is what you are being that has no reflection . What is reflected? Agreed. If we look around in silence, there is no paradox and no reflection.
|
|
|
Post by redglove on Sept 26, 2017 8:00:21 GMT -5
Realization is a change in the purity of mind such that it is capable of reflecting the Self. There is no reflection of Self . There is what you are being that has no reflection . What is reflected? This is true. It's a figure of speech, and this is the land of such figures. By reflection we mean the fact that in so-called realization the mind seems to experience the transition from not noticing the Self clearly and consciously to noticing it. Experience is a property of duality, and since the ego, which enables dualistic experience, works by reflection, we say that the ego "reflects" the Self -- meaning only that the mind is quiet. Or, as Ramana puts it, if it is a reflection, it is like the reflection of one mirror facing another.
|
|
|
Post by redglove on Sept 26, 2017 8:02:45 GMT -5
I will go into this more later (dislike posting on phone), but ego cannot "reflect the boundless Self". Ego and Self are mutually exclusive. Was there an ego when you were born? No, for me that's obvious. So there a something, before ego. This something is what can ~touch~ Self (or vice versa). This something is what-can-become conscious(ness). This is what can become free, no, it is not conditioned. What were ~you~ before ego? I guess you're using ego in a way I don't comprehend. A primitive ego exists at birth -- or the baby could not have primitive baby experience. I was and am eternally the Self: pure Being. And the Self cannot and does not need to reach out and touch itself.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 26, 2017 9:07:37 GMT -5
You mean, does A=B or does B=A?? Where did you get that idea? You asked, is mind not=brain or is brain not=mind.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 26, 2017 10:48:59 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. But in this way you're referring to "Self", can you really even say that Self has a mind and thoughts? So all that a person who doesn't really exist has to do to have this realization that doesn't really exist is to recondition their minds by constantly bringing that mind to the edge where the mind finds it's limit? As far as this point about realization being "completely non-mental" is concerned, the distinction between realization and experience can be informative. Realization is a point event, while an experience is something that happens over time. Experiences can be repeated, but similar to how no two instances of the experience will ever be exactly the same in every detail, especially accounting for subjective state of body/mind during the experience, a realization is never repeated. Learning serves as a sort of metaphor for self-realization in this way. Once you learn that 2+2=4 or that Santa is a fictional character or that the reason for day and night is the relation between the Sun and the Earth or that you catch a cold from a virus, you can only unlearn these by brain damage or some sort of distorted deception. The person appears both before and after realization, but the appearance seems quite different depending on whether or not the realization has happened. The question of "what realizes?" is the question of self-inquiry, and has no explanation, paradoxical or otherwise. Similar to any other appearance, the person has no intrinsic reality in their own right. But to get more precise in the pointing, this isn't to say that the person is any more or less an illusion than a hammer, the Milky Way or a wedding cake. The illusion is the sense of identity that the person has, as a person. It's remarkable that this simple notion of the existential illusion can be explained in equally simple terms of the sense of identity, and realization is simply the discovery and recognition of that illusion, as an illusion. Again, the questions "what recognizes?, what discovers?", are just more repetitive forms of the existential question. Even more remarkable is the fact that peeps can understand this point intellectually, sometimes quite well and to a great degree of sophistication, long before they've ever realized the end of the illusion. One way that I've seen this expressed in these forum dialogs is by people who think of themselves as something more than their body, and more than their minds. But existentially speaking, less is more ... more or less, that is.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Sept 26, 2017 10:54:51 GMT -5
Where did you get that idea? You asked, is mind not=brain or is brain not=mind. Why is this equal thing got to do if mind is the brain and vice versa? Why do we always say it's the mind not the brain that does the thinking? What's the difference between the brain and mind? Are both equal or not? Is it appropriate to say, " Brain (mind) your own business?" Or " I don't brain(mind)"
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 26, 2017 13:12:54 GMT -5
I will go into this more later (dislike posting on phone), but ego cannot "reflect the boundless Self". Ego and Self are mutually exclusive. Was there an ego when you were born? No, for me that's obvious. So there a something, before ego. This something is what can ~touch~ Self (or vice versa). This something is what-can-become conscious(ness). This is what can become free, no, it is not conditioned. What were ~you~ before ego? I guess you're using ego in a way I don't comprehend. A primitive ego exists at birth -- or the baby could not have primitive baby experience. I was and am eternally the Self: pure Being. And the Self cannot and does not need to reach out and touch itself. I'll briefly give my view. As we are born, that's our true sense of self. So the body is essence, the mind, the capacity for feelings, belong to essence. In a sense you could say the hardware is essence. (There are other aspects of essence, but it's better if one sees these for themselves). Via attention and awareness the baby collects information from the exterior world, this (information) is ego (AKA persona, mask, false sense of self, false self, imaginary I, personality, cultural self), you could say ego is the software. The acquisition of language is a major factor in the formation of ego. The baby/small child lives through their true sense of self, through their being, but ego is forming. About age six a shift in identity occurs, the young person i-dentifies with the ~thinking~ self, identity shifts from true sense of self to the false sense of self. The mind itself, still belongs to essence, the contents of the mind (thoughts) belong to ego. (Thus the admonition to still the mind). You could say the neurons belong to essence, the connections between the neurons belong to the false sense of self, are the false sense of self. The spiritual journey is about ~recovering~ the true sense of self, this, is what is connected to the Whole. Eventually, this is a visceral actual living connection. I would say the way people talk about realization here (specifically, Self-Realization) is like getting $1,000,000.00 deposited in one's checking account. But it seems that they continue to live-through the false sense of self, that is, they never write checks on the million dollars (IOW, what good is having the million dollars if you never write checks on it). For me the goal is living through the true sense of self, that is, cashing checks from the account, experiencing-that-life. That's why I've said here many times, Self-Realization is a little bump in the road. Self-Realization is money down, a binder, good faith money. .....But this view is in the minority here, a tiny minority.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 26, 2017 13:26:47 GMT -5
Yeah, though I would say 'always present'. Agreed. What we are is beyond mind, includes mind, and is always present. Yes, but to say always present is meaningless, unless there is awareness of the always present. (It's like knowing someone has put $1,000,000.00 into your banking account, yet you never write checks on it).
|
|
|
Post by redglove on Sept 26, 2017 15:40:07 GMT -5
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. But in this way you're referring to "Self", can you really even say that Self has a mind and thoughts? I think one wouldn't, since the Self isn't an object that can "have" anything. One might say that the mind and thoughts are nothing but the manifestation of Self. Though really, the exact wording falls into the realm of the speculative and incomprehensible. Well, sort of. I do agree with your distinction between experience & realization: more on that below. There is certainly an element that is beyond that non-person's control. Arguably the whole thing -- reconditioning, realization, etc. is all out of its control, since non-people can't control anything. But the mental reconditioning of one kind or another -- regardless of who or what makes it happen -- is the heart of the matter. I agree with all of this, but I'd simply note that even "point events," or qualitative changes, are mental. That is, they are tipping points in and for thought. I'm not sure saying that there's "no" explanation is anything but paradoxical! It's the mind which judges something to be paradoxical or not. Those categories are mental. Beyond the mind, the truth is simply silence -- no statements, and so no judgments of whether those statements are paradoxical or not. I'd say that there appears to be a realizer before realization, but that realization is a change in the mind such that the thoughts now reflect the clarity that there is no one who is or was ignorant -- and therefore no realizer/realization. But darn that's paradoxical. Sure.
|
|
|
Post by redglove on Sept 26, 2017 15:51:15 GMT -5
I guess you're using ego in a way I don't comprehend. A primitive ego exists at birth -- or the baby could not have primitive baby experience. I was and am eternally the Self: pure Being. And the Self cannot and does not need to reach out and touch itself. I'll briefly give my view. As we are born, that's our true sense of self. So the body is essence, the mind, the capacity for feelings, belong to essence. In a sense you could say the hardware is essence. (There are other aspects of essence, but it's better if one sees these for themselves). Via attention and awareness the baby collects information from the exterior world, this (information) is ego (AKA persona, mask, false sense of self, false self, imaginary I, personality, cultural self), you could say ego is the software. The acquisition of language is a major factor in the formation of ego. The baby/small child lives through their true sense of self, through their being, but ego is forming. About age six a shift in identity occurs, the young person i-dentifies with the ~thinking~ self, identity shifts from true sense of self to the false sense of self. The mind itself, still belongs to essence, the contents of the mind (thoughts) belong to ego. (Thus the admonition to still the mind). You could say the neurons belong to essence, the connections between the neurons belong to the false sense of self, are the false sense of self. The spiritual journey is about ~recovering~ the true sense of self, this, is what is connected to the Whole. So through "attention and awareness" does the baby have experiences of things or not (in other words, dualistic experience)? And they are functions of "the mind itself," correct? And if so, what is the "mind itself" made out of -- if it is not thought? Who is the "they" that is living through the false sense of self? Is it "the mind itself" or "the contents of the mind"? And if it is the latter, I thought you said that is the false self... so if the "false self" is living through the "false self" -- what's the problem? Sorry... I think I understand where you're coming from, and I think I agree with its fundamental spirit. But I think the terminology may be a bit confused. I agree, for example, that self-realization is "money down"... there is a lot of percolation of this realization through the mind that then has to take place for the benefits to be fully enjoyed. But that percolation is not done by a person. That idea of a person is no longer identified with -- so what does it matter whether the thoughts are of "experiencing-that-life" or not? Nevertheless, the mind adjusts and quiets over time. It just happens in the mental system as a natural consequence of realization. I'd add that "experiencing-that-life" is not just a reversion to the infant sense of self. It includes ignorance, which can now be enjoyed as ignorance, whereas as a baby that ignorance is not experienced; it is simply obscured. Thus realization provides for the peaceful enjoyment of the full, rich, Sirens' song of emotions and experience, unlike the simple infant sense of self which mostly excludes them, or the typical adult sense of self, which identifies with them.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 26, 2017 17:30:00 GMT -5
You asked, is mind not=brain or is brain not=mind. Why is this equal thing got to do if mind is the brain and vice versa? The '=' sign replaces your words "identical with". It was shorthand used to try to simplify and clarify the problem with what you were actually saying. But it's not particularly important. In your examples, mind is used differently than it is in the larger discussion. To me, the brain refers to a biological organ in which thinking apparently takes place, and mind refers to the process of cognition, so no, I wouldn't say they are equal.
|
|