|
Post by enigma on Sept 26, 2017 17:34:12 GMT -5
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). Consider it a (not meaningless) pointer to that fact.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 26, 2017 17:48:21 GMT -5
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. It's only paradoxical because you've logically concluded there is no realizer and therefore no realization. It's often the use of flawful logic that results in the confusion of paradox. Realization happened, then you silently asked the question 'Who realized?" This is a misconceived existential question. It's only by asking that question that you encounter paradox.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Sept 26, 2017 21:41:22 GMT -5
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. Brain is more of an anatomic discription of that part in the body responsible for making the body walk, talk, eat, hear, listen, laugh, cry, pray, read, dance, sing, just about anything it wants the body to do. Without brain there is no mind. Right?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 26, 2017 23:04:57 GMT -5
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. Brain is more of an anatomic discription of that part in the body responsible for making the body walk, talk, eat, hear, listen, laugh, cry, pray, read, dance, sing, just about anything it wants the body to do. Without brain there is no mind. Right? In one context, yes.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Sept 27, 2017 2:09:49 GMT -5
Brain is more of an anatomic discription of that part in the body responsible for making the body walk, talk, eat, hear, listen, laugh, cry, pray, read, dance, sing, just about anything it wants the body to do. Without brain there is no mind. Right? In one context, yes. So, when it started, there was only the brain. There was no mind. Mind came around when brain gathered information/data from within & without in the form of images, moments, words, lessons, touch, taste, hearing, etc. Perhaps the mind simply is the one we call ego.There is the mind of a doctor, a sage, a politician, a lawyer, a priest, a psycholologist, so on so forth. Take the mind away we only have the brain, primeval/primordial. The one inside the womb of the mother. It's there & it's alive.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 27, 2017 7:23:19 GMT -5
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. First part, yes, the baby has experiences, through their attention and awareness. Having experiences is how the brain stores the information. The question of thought is an old question here, how thought is defined. I accept there is a physical world out there, a world the baby is born into (or as Alan Watts says, out of). So with a healthy baby born there is brain processing. The brain-sensory system is there functioning, there is cognition going on, yes, one could call this thinking. But normally, here, when we use the word thought, abstraction is meant, thinking via words. Babies don't abstract. This (abstraction, use of symbols, conceptualization) starts at about eighteen months (I think babies can understand language much sooner than they can talk. I also learned from my grandson and daughter that babies can learn to use sign language before they can talk. He learned to sign, by himself, by watching young Einstein on the internet, about 12 months. (I was able to visit them when he was 18 months, he was using about 12 "words" then (signs). He started signing and my daughter figured out it meant something, and traced it back to Young Einstein ). So for babies, brain processing, cognitive function, yes (otherwise no raw data for eventually learning to abstract).
Second part, we are born as essence, what we truly are. Essence is essentially potential. When we are born essence begins to grow. Essence has a direct connection to the world via sensory input. Just like the body needs physical food and air to grow, impressions are also a vital food for essence. Impressions go directly to feed essence, which is small and fragile. But via the stored information, ego begins to form. See the infornation as a kind of cloud or web forming over essence. Eventually, less impressions fall directly on essence, more fall on the forming ego (cultural self). By about age six ego is almost fully formed, so most of the impressions coming in through the senses, now fall on ego/persona/mask, not essence. So what we truly are ceases to be fed, ceases to grow. Essence, for the most part, depending on the individual, ceases to have contact with the exterior world, ceases to grow. So what we truly are is usurped by the false sense of self. We are no longer who we truly are. We now think we are these thoughts in our head.
[Native peoples are more in essence, people who live more tied to nature].
The contents of the mind, abstract thoughts, feelings, belong to the false sense of self. The "hardware", brain structure, the nervous system, belongs to essence, the body itself.
For the record, ZD's ATA-T puts one (back) in essence. (You can see why -T is most important). As we are, incoming impressions usually fall on ego/cultural self/imaginary I, impressions do-not get-to essence. But with ATA-T, the internal dialogue isn't cranked up continually, gives the chance for impressions to go-in-to essence, like a newborn/little child.
This "paradigm" doesn't fit well with (modern) nondual teaching. There is agreement that, as we are, we do not have our own I, our own I am. From my view this is because essence has not grown to its potential (because of the faulty process described above). Nonduality stops there. Essence is one's true individuality, but it is thwarted potential. My path is to some day have one's own, mature, I (am).
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 27, 2017 9:09:45 GMT -5
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. See, I refer to the realization itself beyond mind, this is why there are no Self reflections .. There is no-one to notice the Self clearly as you put it . If there is a noticing of the Self, there will be a Self reflection noticing itself as that . When there is 'being Self' there is no comparisons regarding noticing Self compared to not .
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 27, 2017 9:20:53 GMT -5
So, when it started, there was only the brain. There was no mind. Mind came around when brain gathered information/data from within & without in the form of images, moments, words, lessons, touch, taste, hearing, etc. Perhaps the mind simply is the one we call ego.There is the mind of a doctor, a sage, a politician, a lawyer, a priest, a psycholologist, so on so forth. Take the mind away we only have the brain, primeval/primordial. The one inside the womb of the mother. It's there & it's alive. In one context, yes.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 27, 2017 10:00:40 GMT -5
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. Ok, so on one hand you've written that Self is experiencing and thinking but then on the other you agree, that in the context you're referring to "Self", that "Self" isn't an object that can have thoughts and experiences. Yes, paradox is always a creation of mind -- you obviously understand the most important facet of paradox -- and objectifying monisms is one of the primary roots of those creations. You've written enough that I see you clearly understand what I mean by this idea of objectifying a monism, but can you notice it happening in your own mind, as it happens? There's another one of those roots of paradox here in this dialog that's far more subtle, intricate even, but it's worth the mental effort to understand it because it illuminates the dynamics of how mind creates the false sense of identity. It's illustrated by the way mind creates a paradox out of the statement: "The question of 'what realizes?' is the question of self-inquiry, and has no explanation, paradoxical or otherwise." Would you like me to elaborate? The way mind makes a paradox of that statement can be found by observing the content, structure and dynamics of mind as a meditative practice, the results of which (for this specific movement of mind) can be explained in purely mechanistic terms. It's a very particular instance of seeing the false as false, and it's one of those rare times when mind can be caught in the act and even explained to itself, on it's own ground, in a way that is completely comprehensible and rational, although, marvelously complicated and not easy to understand. So what is it that you'd say is in the person's control? The appearance of control can be an important appearance for people depending on the situation and their conditioning, but isn't this just another particular form of the existential question? If realization is nothing more than a change in the mind, then can't it just be taught to someone? People can understand this distinction between the person-as-apppearence and the identity-as-illusion intellectually even as they're gripped quite tightly in the trance. Spiritual people-peeps are all like .. "Elephant? What Elephant?? " I'm all for the process you're describing over time of someone repeatedly turning their attention toward the limits of mind. There are many forms of this, but people have been doing those for thousands of years and most of them went to their graves with their false sense of identities raging on loud and clear. If self-realization is just a matter of mental reconditioning then why haven't we discovered the magic formula for making it happen yet? By the way, you've already expressed the answer to this question in this dialog, but my guess is you won't accept it because it runs contrary to your idea of how to liberate people by getting them to practice resting in awareness: the reconditioning of mind both before and after realization is just one more after-the-fact relative appearance, just like the changing of the seasons. Now, this isn't to devalue the would-be spiritual teacher's role in that process, but simply to put it in perspective. Where there is no possibility of theory, there is no possibility of a theory of cause and effect.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Sept 27, 2017 12:57:27 GMT -5
So, when it started, there was only the brain. There was no mind. Mind came around when brain gathered information/data from within & without in the form of images, moments, words, lessons, touch, taste, hearing, etc. Perhaps the mind simply is the one we call ego.There is the mind of a doctor, a sage, a politician, a lawyer, a priest, a psycholologist, so on so forth. Take the mind away we only have the brain, primeval/primordial. The one inside the womb of the mother. It's there & it's alive. In one context, yes. Chicken's head cut-off with body still wiggling.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 27, 2017 14:00:28 GMT -5
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. Ok, so on one hand you've written that Self is experiencing and thinking but then on the other you agree, that in the context you're referring to "Self", that "Self" isn't an object that can have thoughts and experiences. Yes, paradox is always a creation of mind -- you obviously understand the most important facet of paradox -- and objectifying monisms is one of the primary roots of those creations. You've written enough that I see you clearly understand what I mean by this idea of objectifying a monism, but can you notice it happening in your own mind, as it happens? There's another one of those roots of paradox here in this dialog that's far more subtle, intricate even, but it's worth the mental effort to understand it because it illuminates the dynamics of how mind creates the false sense of identity. It's illustrated by the way mind creates a paradox out of the statement: "The question of 'what realizes?' is the question of self-inquiry, and has no explanation, paradoxical or otherwise." Would you like me to elaborate? The way mind makes a paradox of that statement can be found by observing the content, structure and dynamics of mind as a meditative practice, the results of which (for this specific movement of mind) can be explained in purely mechanistic terms. It's a very particular instance of seeing the false as false, and it's one of those rare times when mind can be caught in the act and even explained to itself, on it's own ground, in a way that is completely comprehensible and rational, although, marvelously complicated and not easy to understand. So what is it that you'd say is in the person's control? The appearance of control can be an important appearance for people depending on the situation and their conditioning, but isn't this just another particular form of the existential question? If realization is nothing more than a change in the mind, then can't it just be taught to someone? People can understand this distinction between the person-as-apppearence and the identity-as-illusion intellectually even as they're gripped quite tightly in the trance. Spiritual people-peeps are all like .. "Elephant? What Elephant?? " I'm all for the process you're describing over time of someone repeatedly turning their attention toward the limits of mind. There are many forms of this, but people have been doing those for thousands of years and most of them went to their graves with their false sense of identities raging on loud and clear. If self-realization is just a matter of mental reconditioning then why haven't we discovered the magic formula for making it happen yet? By the way, you've already expressed the answer to this question in this dialog, but my guess is you won't accept it because it runs contrary to your idea of how to liberate people by getting them to practice resting in awareness: the reconditioning of mind both before and after realization is just one more after-the-fact relative appearance, just like the changing of the seasons. Now, this isn't to devalue the would-be spiritual teacher's role in that process, but simply to put it in perspective. Where there is no possibility of theory, there is no possibility of a theory of cause and effect. Yes, I think redglove is l-i-k-e 1/2 way between sdp and you-un-suzs....
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 27, 2017 14:52:13 GMT -5
Ok, so on one hand you've written that Self is experiencing and thinking but then on the other you agree, that in the context you're referring to "Self", that "Self" isn't an object that can have thoughts and experiences. Yes, paradox is always a creation of mind -- you obviously understand the most important facet of paradox -- and objectifying monisms is one of the primary roots of those creations. You've written enough that I see you clearly understand what I mean by this idea of objectifying a monism, but can you notice it happening in your own mind, as it happens? There's another one of those roots of paradox here in this dialog that's far more subtle, intricate even, but it's worth the mental effort to understand it because it illuminates the dynamics of how mind creates the false sense of identity. It's illustrated by the way mind creates a paradox out of the statement: "The question of 'what realizes?' is the question of self-inquiry, and has no explanation, paradoxical or otherwise." Would you like me to elaborate? The way mind makes a paradox of that statement can be found by observing the content, structure and dynamics of mind as a meditative practice, the results of which (for this specific movement of mind) can be explained in purely mechanistic terms. It's a very particular instance of seeing the false as false, and it's one of those rare times when mind can be caught in the act and even explained to itself, on it's own ground, in a way that is completely comprehensible and rational, although, marvelously complicated and not easy to understand. So what is it that you'd say is in the person's control? The appearance of control can be an important appearance for people depending on the situation and their conditioning, but isn't this just another particular form of the existential question? If realization is nothing more than a change in the mind, then can't it just be taught to someone? People can understand this distinction between the person-as-apppearence and the identity-as-illusion intellectually even as they're gripped quite tightly in the trance. Spiritual people-peeps are all like .. "Elephant? What Elephant?? " I'm all for the process you're describing over time of someone repeatedly turning their attention toward the limits of mind. There are many forms of this, but people have been doing those for thousands of years and most of them went to their graves with their false sense of identities raging on loud and clear. If self-realization is just a matter of mental reconditioning then why haven't we discovered the magic formula for making it happen yet? By the way, you've already expressed the answer to this question in this dialog, but my guess is you won't accept it because it runs contrary to your idea of how to liberate people by getting them to practice resting in awareness: the reconditioning of mind both before and after realization is just one more after-the-fact relative appearance, just like the changing of the seasons. Now, this isn't to devalue the would-be spiritual teacher's role in that process, but simply to put it in perspective. Where there is no possibility of theory, there is no possibility of a theory of cause and effect. Yes, I think redglove is l-i-k-e 1/2 way between sdp and you-un-suzs.... Oh, do you mean that in the sense of the 48 possible levels of ascended ethereal beings who walk the earth evolving toward ever greater spiritual mastery?
|
|
|
Post by redglove on Sept 27, 2017 14:52:56 GMT -5
This "paradigm" doesn't fit well with (modern) nondual teaching. There is agreement that, as we are, we do not have our own I, our own I am. From my view this is because essence has not grown to its potential (because of the faulty process described above). Nonduality stops there. Essence is one's true individuality, but it is thwarted potential. My path is to some day have one's own, mature, I (am). Ah, ok, I think I understand a little better now. I think I mostly agree with you that non-duality per se does not address the maturation of the essence, as you call it. But that's because it views the baby non-verbal mind and the adult mind as both manifestations of the ego. True, the former is non-verbal and more immediate, and yes, that does bear an important relation to the meditative state. But realization shows that both involve duality, that both are not the true I. IMO. That said, maturation of the ego -- integration of the thinking and non-thinking modes of mind -- happens post-realization. And from the relative standpoint it's a good thing!
|
|
|
Post by redglove on Sept 27, 2017 15:12:34 GMT -5
Ok, so on one hand you've written that Self is experiencing and thinking but then on the other you agree, that in the context you're referring to "Self", that "Self" isn't an object that can have thoughts and experiences. Yes, paradox is always a creation of mind -- you obviously understand the most important facet of paradox -- and objectifying monisms is one of the primary roots of those creations. You've written enough that I see you clearly understand what I mean by this idea of objectifying a monism, but can you notice it happening in your own mind, as it happens? Of course. Language and mind work in monisms, which is precisely why they ought to acknowledge that when it comes to these topics, paradox is inevitable. Sure, please go ahead and elaborate. I'm intrigued. I will say that in my experience, any claimed categorical verbal certainty about what can or cannot be and absolutely be stated about what Is -- has been a far more frequent symptom of "mind creating a false sense of identity." When people are seekers, they feel that they are in control. If they are honest, they must act per that feeling and engage in the seeking practice that seems to resonate. They may and do follow their honest convictions. At the same time, if they are seekers, they will at some point conclude that personal control cannot possibly be true. So they must act as if they have control while knowing that it cannot really be the case. That's paradoxical, but there we are again. Or they can conclude the whole thing is an incredible mystery, which comes to the same thing. The real truth is that nothing is in the person's control, because the person doesn't really exist. The person no more exists than there is actually a person who lives in the reel of a movie. No -- it's just a series of frames. And if the frames seem to connect in a way that show a causal relationship between what a character in one of the frames does and what that character seems to do in another frame -- that relationship is a) an interpretation assembled in the mind of a viewer and b) ultimately due to the director, actors, etc. . Because it's not merely an intellectual change in the mind, of course. The mind must be quieted.... and then it also has to be in the script. The creator of the script decides what happens to the images in the end. Why would we assume one lifetime is enough? Maybe it takes many. Certainly the ancient traditions believed that. Effort is usually necessary but not sufficient. Of course grace is required as well -- again, the mind is a series of thoughts that comes from God. God decides when that series of thoughts has grown sufficiently calm that it ought to be graced with the semblance of self-knowledge. Maybe it comes soon, maybe never. Or conversely, perhaps God decides to enlighten someone who has not put in any prior effort -- at least in this lifetime. We clearly don't see the whole picture. But if that happens, that happens.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 27, 2017 16:10:32 GMT -5
Sure, please go ahead and elaborate. I'm intrigued. I will say that in my experience, any claimed categorical verbal certainty about what can or cannot be and absolutely be stated about what Is -- has been a far more frequent symptom of "mind creating a false sense of identity." Ok, it's enough of a digression that I'm going to write about it separately. What leads you to associate this idea with that? You've stated that realization requires grace. Have you stated a "verbal certainty about what can or cannot be and absolutely be stated about what Is"? To see a paradox in: the mind has to follow a particular pattern of thought that is inherently self-referential. Similar to the the pattern of thought/emotion that generates the false sense of personal self. It goes like this: "well, to say that the question has no explanation is an explanation, so it's a paradox." With me so far? The train of thought forms the meaning of the statement as a paradox by first labeling it an explanation. This is the way the mind works generally when it's unobserved and left to it's own thing. It generates the next thought in the train based on contriving an interest in the current thought. There's alot more I can write about this, as it's really a fascinating topic, right at that twilight zone where mind has the opportunity either to quiesce or spin.
|
|