Heartmind

[JustARandomPanda]

Yeah, you don't get it do you?

 

You will one day

 

Whatever dude.

 

By you I didn't mean you in particular but everyone. It is how it is Serene, why not accept the differences, and find the appreciation in even the objectivity that has brought us all together to these forums. Without that, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

You REALLY are showing your ignorance of me and my post history since this is the conclusion you've come to. Accepting differences of POVs is something I strive for. I just got finished trying to mod fairly and impartially several threads which got into the equivalent of a shouting match and ended up getting someone suspended (not by me). I'd say that's putting my money where my mouth is.

 

 

 

The objective nature of science isn't subjective, regardless of how many seth's or gih's there are, and that is really unrealistic.

 

Example:

 

Maybe if Santa Clause was real he would be able to save all the children from the drought in Africa!

 

Get it?

 

No I don't. I guess that means you have a bigger Spiritually-Realized-Penis than me. Sorry I posted my erronous POV.

 

The whole point of your thread is heart mind, which i am simply pointing out how erronous your statement / thoughts are in relation to that.

 

Doesn't matter if you like it or not.

 

Liking/not liking had and has nothing to do with my posts.

 

I was speaking about how I currently view things at this point in time. This can and will change.

 

 

Comments on THIS post are not welcomed.

[C T]

Yeah, you don't get it do you?

 

You will one day

 

By you I didn't mean you in particular but everyone. It is how it is Serene, why not accept the differences, and find the appreciation in even the objectivity that has brought us all together to these forums. Without that, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

It sounded like much wanting in your post.

 

The objective nature of science isn't subjective, regardless of how many seth's or gih's there are, and that is really unrealistic.

 

Example:

 

Maybe if Santa Clause was real he would be able to save all the children from the drought in Africa!

 

Get it?

 

The whole point of your thread is heart mind, which i am simply pointing out how erronous your statement / thoughts are in relation to that.

 

Doesn't matter if you like it or not.

The way you 'designed' this post makes it hard for someone to zone in to what exactly you're trying to say.

 

I mean, you do have a purpose for it, what with all the profound 'pointing out', right?

 

Santa Claus saving dying children (and adults?) in Africa? !!

 

Surely you're way ahead of most of us, well me anyways....

 

Not sure bout Serene Blue, but i really do try to learn something whenever i come across your posts, but this... man..

 

... here, have my biscuit (just kidding ok?)

[Aetherous]

Well, if Santa Claus had a heartmind, I'm sure he would do that.

[C T]

Well, if Santa Claus had a heartmind, I'm sure he would do that.

Are you implying he does not?

 

:lol:

[Aetherous]

Are you implying he is a she!?!?

[Informer]

Whatever dude.

 

 

 

You REALLY are showing your ignorance of me and my post history since this is the conclusion you've come to. Accepting differences of POVs is something I strive for. I just got finished trying to mod fairly and impartially several threads which got into the equivalent of a shouting match and ended up getting someone suspended (not by me). I'd say that's putting my money where my mouth is.

 

 

 

 

 

No I don't. I guess that means you have a bigger Spiritually-Realized-Penis than me. Sorry I posted my erronous POV.

 

 

 

Liking/not liking had and has nothing to do with my posts.

 

I was speaking about how I currently view things at this point in time. This can and will change.

 

 

Comments on THIS post are not welcomed.

 

Ah I see you chose to fight. It is only natural to choose fight or flight. Although there are alternatives to that.

[Informer]

The way you 'designed' this post makes it hard for someone to zone in to what exactly you're trying to say.

 

I mean, you do have a purpose for it, what with all the profound 'pointing out', right?

 

Santa Claus saving dying children (and adults?) in Africa? !!

 

Surely you're way ahead of most of us, well me anyways....

 

Not sure bout Serene Blue, but i really do try to learn something whenever i come across your posts, but this... man..

 

... here, have my biscuit (just kidding ok?)

 

Well there are multiple ways to look at what she said, therefore it is up to her to make it clear, the lump was the natural instinct that says to fight or flight.

[Informer]

The way you 'designed' this post makes it hard for someone to zone in to what exactly you're trying to say.

 

I mean, you do have a purpose for it, what with all the profound 'pointing out', right?

 

Santa Claus saving dying children (and adults?) in Africa? !!

 

Surely you're way ahead of most of us, well me anyways....

 

Not sure bout Serene Blue, but i really do try to learn something whenever i come across your posts, but this... man..

 

... here, have my biscuit (just kidding ok?)

 

 

Same with you sir. I have learned quite a bit from you and from everyone here.

[Informer]

I felt a lump in my throat too Serene, from saying those things to you. I tried to look from your perspective to see how what I wrote would effect you.

 

Now look from other perspective of the people who greatly contribute to these forums, pouring out thier hearts and soul's, only to be discarded by you, in favor of Seth and GiH. As well as the unrealistic multiplications of those to single people. It is sort of ungrateful from that angle.

 

I know you was only showing your appreciation, although a very limited sort of appreciation.

 

Anyways, don't worry about it.

 

I am sorry that you felt angry/sad.

 

Can you see how it could have been misinterpreted as putting people on a pedastal, above others atleast?

[JustARandomPanda]

Now look from other perspective of the people who greatly contribute to these forums, pouring out thier hearts and soul's, only to be discarded by you, in favor of Seth and GiH. As well as the unrealistic multiplications of those to single people. It is sort of ungrateful from that angle.

 

***edit***

 

Can you see how it could have been misinterpreted as putting people on a pedastal, above others atleast?

 

This is such a wrong analysis of what I posted I don't even know where to begin. I am not a Chess Master and can not anticipate every single conceivable way people will read my posts. If I start trying to do so I will begin second guessing practically every post I make...and ultimately end up not posting at all for fear somebody somewhere will read my post incorrectly (and get pissed)...as you did.

[Informer]

Nah, I don't get pissed. I was just trying to show you.

[Seth Ananda]

Why did this end up in the pit? I do not see any insults? Or did I somehow miss them?

 

The only thing I see is the obvious constant confusion of Informer, mixed with his belief in his own wisdom.

 

Look at his track record with me. Negate, affirm, negate again, then read something about my mystical experiences and praise me saying 'that's why you didn't get stuck' [as in at rt], then back to negating again.

 

In other words he has a head full of Ideas and does not know what to think or where to stand... No wisdom.

 

But why the pit? There is not even a Mod note saying why.

[Seth Ananda]

 

Now look from other perspective of the people who greatly contribute to these forums, pouring out thier hearts and soul's, only to be discarded by you, in favor of Seth and GiH. As well as the unrealistic multiplications of those to single people. It is sort of ungrateful from that angle.

 

Can you see how it could have been misinterpreted as putting people on a pedastal, above others atleast?

Are you saying we dont pour out our heart and soul? The only real things you have contributed to this forum is cluttered threads with constantly changing arguments.

 

And It's Ok to admire peoples ability to think straight. How is that discarding you?

I think once again you are letting your emotions color your ability to be consistent.

[Mal]

But why the pit? There is not even a Mod note saying why.

 

Seems like an error (perhaps from eating too much spam) fixed

[Informer]

Are you saying we dont pour out our heart and soul? The only real things you have contributed to this forum is cluttered threads with constantly changing arguments.

 

And It's Ok to admire peoples ability to think straight. How is that discarding you?

I think once again you are letting your emotions color your ability to be consistent.

 

 

Sure, point it out bud, I'll be happy to explain. (Or try too)

 

 

I don't feel discarded. Yes it is nice to have people to admire, but putting some above others is not what is heartmind.

 

Neither is unrealistically wanting things unattainable.

[deci belle]

[doc benway]

Well, a pure sensory experience is one where we are tasting, smelling, hearing, seeing, feeling.

 

If you were blindfolded and given random things to eat, you'd be able to say, "Oh yeah, that's a strawberry...that's a piece of beef jerky..." etc.

 

Coming to those conclusions is a split second recognition by the mind. But how we come to those conclusions is through the pure sensory experience.

 

Is the mind and its categorizing ever fully shut off? Sometimes...such as in the blindfold example when you're first tasting the thing, or if you're experiencing something totally new. But it's not necessary to separate the senses from the mind, in my opinion. There's no goal here.

 

At least personally, I can't say that the senses can be categorized as "mind".

 

Also, this can be interesting:

 

 

The first thing most people see are the outlines of two faces. That is the mind's recognition of the pure sensory experience. But it can also be interpreted as a goblet type of cup, or a candle holder of some type. And yet another way of looking at it is that it's simply lines drawn on a computer in some sort of pattern, with black and white colors...all of these interpretations are the mind's working of categorizing the sensory experience of whatever the image is.

 

If you drop all of that, you can experience different aspects of the image in a more sensory way. You can notice in the top right corner, the sharp angle...a detail which wasn't noticeable when you cast the image off as simply being two faces. But now you can notice how sharp that angle is. Or look at what you could say is the bottom of the "cup"...you can now see that it isn't perfectly flat...there are some bumps in the center.

 

So you can see how the mind limits some experiences.

The pure sensory experience is already mind.

 

It might be useful to look at what the sensory experience is:

Sight happens when specialized cells in the eye are stimulated and send patterns of impulses to the optical cortex in the brain. Those patterns of electrical impulse in the optical cortex are as random as a printout of 0's and 1's from a computer. They need to be recognized somehow for sight to exist. That recognition involves comparing the random patterns to previously stored patterns and Voila!, it's a candlestick no faces, no a candelstick, whatever. Sight occurs in the optical cortex, not the eye.

 

Same thing for hearing (tympanic vibration stimultes electrical signals.. blah, blah)

and taste, touch, etc...

 

So the sensory experience is a part of mind, not the environment.

Take away the brain and there is no sight, hearing, or touch.

An eye without the brain does not see, etc...

And without interpretation of pattern, there is no sight or hearing, etc...

 

So the human organism is a complex antenna that makes sense out of a random mess of energy. And even the organism is a random mess of energy. And even the energy is just flux, movement, no inherent stuff or substance. So the insightful scientist is not a materialist at all. They understand that there is no stuff. But it's very useful to use the paradigm and at a relative level everything does exist, just not independently.

 

Sorry for the delay but I had a very busy weekend.

[Aetherous]

The pure sensory experience is already mind.

 

It might be useful to look at what the sensory experience is:

Sight happens when specialized cells in the eye are stimulated and send patterns of impulses to the optical cortex in the brain. Those patterns of electrical impulse in the optical cortex are as random as a printout of 0's and 1's from a computer. They need to be recognized somehow for sight to exist. That recognition involves comparing the random patterns to previously stored patterns and Voila!, it's a candlestick no faces, no a candelstick, whatever. Sight occurs in the optical cortex, not the eye.

 

Same thing for hearing (tympanic vibration stimultes electrical signals.. blah, blah)

and taste, touch, etc...

 

So the sensory experience is a part of mind, not the environment.

Take away the brain and there is no sight, hearing, or touch.

An eye without the brain does not see, etc...

And without interpretation of pattern, there is no sight or hearing, etc...

 

Mind and brain aren't the same thing, and I don't consider the sensory experience to be "mind", even if the brain is making sense of things. When I'm listening to the radio, I don't say that action is mind...but if I were to play a song in my head from memory, that would be mind.

[Vmarco]

Heartmind has no cause for mentality. Non-origination isn't void, nor has it ever existed. What is all this blather about?— so pathetic!!

 

The mind of a Tathagata has never moved. Neither body nor any organ comprising or functioning within it, physical or subtle, extended, transmigrated or projected is it. There is no correlation between mind and the brain, ass, eye, etc.

 

No system, method, discipline, practice, much less the numberless sidetracks and spin-offs of authentic teaching throughout the ages can reach it.

 

Can you just rest in the midst of creation without entertaining illusions of differentiation that trigger arbitrary thoughts and actions? This is no different than the Way. Harmonizing your light is the same as the Way permeating and suffusing creation. As one is becoming of heartmind; heartmind is becoming of oneself. The mind that realizes sudden illumination is not separate form the reality borrowed by the name heartmind— nor is it other than your own mind right now.

 

The connection you refer to is a matter of stopping the momentum that results in stupid, self-depreciating behavior. As you can see, we cannot stop ourselves. Powerlessly we flow headlong into disaster and impasse. I wish I could help, but I can't. Only you can stop yourself. Once you do, your own fire will ignite and no one will know. The connection with heartmind is stopping. Heartmind is you, but you will never know until you are the same as heartmind. When you are the same, it will be obvious to you that reality is not other.

 

No mental or physical discipline can approach the strategy of freedom, which is none other than being unminding in all situations. Until one has the capacity for freedom within potential in everyday ordinary affairs right now— one will not have complete freedom and presence when one dies.

 

Enlightenment is knowledge of death itself. Until one knows death, there is no way to know life. Heartmind has no inside or outside, much less distance or beginning. When it moves, it is not localized …so what moves? Gone, gone, beyond gone— gone beyond, is another universe.

 

Do you know?

 

 

Excellent post,...certainly worthy of critique.

 

The Mind of a Tathagata has never moved. The sentient mind, which aroses from the skandhas, cannot sense that which has never moved,...the sentient mind observes only motion,...from an apparently resting rock, to massive Planets in orbit around the Sun,...all objects are in motion.

 

The Mind of a Tathagata has never moved. Quite frightening for the sentient, sciential mind,...it upsets its logic.

 

Although the phrase "Enlightenment is knowledge of death itself" is common language use, it doesn't ring as well as it could,...for example,....Enlightenment is Gnowledge of death itself. The language to discuss Heart-Mind needs to be more specific. Knowledge arises from the cerebral-mind,...an accumulation of ideas,..whereas gnowledge is an understanding beyond sentience.

 

Inscribed over the portico of the Temple at Delphi in Greece was written Gnothi Seauton—gnow thyself. To the Greeks, gnowledge or wisdom arose through the thymos, located near the physical heart, and associated with the thymus gland. The psyche, located in the gray-goo in the head, was considered of secondary importance. Some cultures like the Egyptian and Maya of Mesoamerica, thought so lowly of the brain, or sciential mind, that before burials it was sucked out and discarded, whereas the heart was treasured.

 

Today's scientially minded may think such a philosophy as primitive, but keep in mind that the Egyptians for example were quite aware of the brain. Evidence clearly shows that the Egyptians had an intimate knowledge of brain functions, for instance that the left cerebral hemisphere controls the right side of the body. As was the case with the tantrika and Vajrayana in Asia, and the Maya of Mesoamerica, Egyptians seemed to have been aware that the brain is the vessel for the lowest consciousness, whereas from the heart arose the highest consciousness. Ancient cultures appear to have discarded the brain because they had a higher awareness of self.

 

Knowledge proceeds through what Buddha called the five skandhas or Aggregates, which includes sensual perceptions and conditioned experience by way of the psyche or personal consciousness. To know is to comprehend noologically, through intellect-based thought.

 

Gnowledge or sapience, from sapientia, is to understand through metasensory awareness and unconditioned experience through the thymos or impersonal consciousness. To gnow is to understand by way of gnosis, the gnowledge that Siddhartha Gautama, the "Sage of the Shakyas," implied when he said, be a Lamp unto Thyself.

 

Of course this is just semantics,...however, semantics are more important to the discussion of Heart-Mind that for a Lawyer, Physician, or Astrologer.

 

Deci Belle wrote, "As one is becoming of heartmind; heartmind is becoming of oneself." This broaches a huge discussion,...for example, how is No Beginning, No end, applicable to our perceived present? The sentient mind looks at a presumed past and theorizes an evolutionary process, a beginning and possible end. The religious minded looks at their Holy Books and theorizes a beginning and no end.

 

It may be impossible for the sentient mind to grasp that time is one, or that evolution may have occurred from the top down, rather than the bottom up. The sentient mind cannot sense stillness,...and yet, stillness, the stillness of consciousness, is who we are,...even for those attached to the dream of motion for their identity.

 

"Do you know?" Deci Belle writes.

 

I'd say that, those who know, do not gnow.

 

V

[doc benway]

Mind and brain aren't the same thing, and I don't consider the sensory experience to be "mind", even if the brain is making sense of things. When I'm listening to the radio, I don't say that action is mind...but if I were to play a song in my head from memory, that would be mind.

I agree and I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

I was in a hurry earlier but wanted to respond because I've been a away for a few days.

A similar argument can be made extending to what it is that perceives and interprets and so on, it's just another layer.

Nevertheless, I'm going to let it go.

Be well.

[tulku]

Very interesting read - thanks for that. It's important, I think, to recognize that we really don't know what's going on in these cases. Lot's of good ideas based in traditional Western paradigm and also some things that just don't add up in a neat and tidy way.

 

 

This is an interesting area of inquiry. Just yesterday I was talking with a good friend about things like heart, mind, spirit, mind intent, and so on. In most descriptions, heartmind is considered something that is completely empty of concepts, information, idea, and so on. So I think we're on a slippery slope when we attribute intuition or knowing of any kind to it. It is more being than any sort of knowing or accessing something or information of any kind. I'm not saying intuition does not exist but it may be a different manifestation of knowledge, yet not really what would be considered heart mind. Perhaps others would want to comment on this - I'm no authority.

 

Here is something I learned yesterday that appealed to my intellect and is somewhat related:

My buddy and I were discussing our experience of Yi as it relates to Taijiquan training so I looked at the Chinese character for Yi which, relative to Taijiquan and Daoist meditation, is generally defined as mind intent.

意 - yi: mind of intent

The base radical is 心 - xin: heart, mind - now I don't mean to say that this is equivalent to the Buddhist use of the Enghlish words heart-mind. There are some parallels and some important differences. I don't want to derail the thread too much so I'll stop there. Although if anyone is interested in exploring the differences, I'd be interested in others' views and insights.

The upper radical is 音 - yin: sound, noise, news.

So the mind intent is expressed in Hanzi by showing it to be a communication from or expression of the Daoist concept of heart/mind.

 

It doesn't mean much but I liked this - learning is fun (but not the way to Dao! That's unlearning... )

 

what is the difference between intent of the mind and intent of the heart? can the intent of the mind be totally different from the heart?

 

my heart want to eat this cake because it tastes good but my mind does not want to eat this cake because it makes me fat, yesh?

[tulku]

 

Now Buddhists will tell you there is no soul, but I've always felt this was a bit odd, especially in regards to the Buddhist notion of rebirth, that one is reborn and carries their Karmic debt from one life to the next. I wont go into the particulars, but to me the notion that we are reborn insinuates that something exists within us that carries us from one life to another.

 

 

http://www.holisticshop.co.uk/articles/mahaparinirvana-sutra-buddha

If you ask most Buddhists whether there is any doctrine of a soul or eternal Self within the teachings of the Buddha, they will reply with a very definite "no!"

 

And yet a closer study of Mahayana Buddhism (one of the two main divisions of Buddhism) reveals that this is quite simply inaccurate. The Buddha teaches both the non-Self and the Self. Let us look at these two facets of his "Dharma" (Truth).

 

The misunderstanding by most Buddhists arises from the fact that the Buddha usually places the greatest emphasis on what is NOT the Soul or Self. Thus, the physical body, feelings, thoughts, impulses, and ordinary consciousness are labelled as "non-Self" or "non-Soul" (anatman). These elements of our worldly being are impermanent and subject to change and dissolution, so cannot sensibly be deemed our Soul. They make up our "mundane self", and that mundane self is dismissed as "a lie" by the Buddha. This fictitious worldly self or ego has no enduring reality - it is a constantly mutating stream of reincarnating desires which never find lasting satisfaction. Our worldly self is one big and painful illusion.

 

Most Buddhists stop here and preach this as the highest truth about selfhood. This, however, is only half the story. In the final phase of his teaching career, the Buddha revealed that there exists within each sentient being an innermost essence, which knows of no change and no death. He called this "the True Self" or "True Soul" (satya-atman). He also termed it the Buddha-Dhatu - the "Buddha-Principle" - or the tathagata-garbha, the "embryonic Buddha" latent within us.

[dawei]

what is the difference between intent of the mind and intent of the heart? can the intent of the mind be totally different from the heart?

 

my heart want to eat this cake because it tastes good but my mind does not want to eat this cake because it makes me fat, yesh?

This is just a physical perspective and neglects their role on the more spiritual-energetic level where they want to interact and harmony within and without.

 

As was mentioned:

The upper radical is 音 - yin: sound, noise, news.

So the mind intent is expressed in Hanzi by showing it to be a communication from or expression of the Daoist concept of heart/mind.

 

These (sound, noise, news) are everyday items which are 'transported' via some means. In TCM, where is the "Yi" (意) stored? In the Spleen. And the spleen is responsible for the transformation and transportation of thoughts, ideas, etc... so the top radical makes sense even when understood in TCM. But the "Yi" does not act alone; it interacts with the other agents (there are five agents, each to a yin organ). The heart stores the Shen (神) which connects heaven and earth (it is classically a very mysterious looking Yin Yang symbol). When Yi and Shen interact, those items are transported into action.

 

When Yi is conserved, it is said "Zhi" (志) willpower increases; Note the similarity to "Yi" with a heart at the bottom. In fact, the two (意志) can be used as a compound to mean purpose, desire, intention, mind, idea, ambition, will. Where is "Zhi" stored? In the kidneys which is the abode of wisdom. So "Zhi" is the foundation of wisdom and joins to "Yi" for meanings mentioned.

 

Yi is centrally to the other four agents and thus interconnects them as well as connects (or seeks a return to) to Divine/Universal Yi. I left off two of the agents so far: Liver-Hun and Lungs-Po. Hun (魂) and Po (魄) would take too much time to explain so I'll leave that as a lookup...

[doc benway]

what is the difference between intent of the mind and intent of the heart? can the intent of the mind be totally different from the heart?

 

my heart want to eat this cake because it tastes good but my mind does not want to eat this cake because it makes me fat, yesh?

Before answering that question we first need to define what is the difference between the mind and the heart?

心 = both

[doc benway]

Now Buddhists will tell you there is no soul, but I've always felt this was a bit odd, especially in regards to the Buddhist notion of rebirth, that one is reborn and carries their Karmic debt from one life to the next. I wont go into the particulars, but to me the notion that we are reborn insinuates that something exists within us that carries us from one life to another.

 

http://www.holisticshop.co.uk/articles/mahaparinirvana-sutra-buddha

If you ask most Buddhists whether there is any doctrine of a soul or eternal Self within the teachings of the Buddha, they will reply with a very definite "no!"

 

And yet a closer study of Mahayana Buddhism (one of the two main divisions of Buddhism) reveals that this is quite simply inaccurate. The Buddha teaches both the non-Self and the Self. Let us look at these two facets of his "Dharma" (Truth).

 

The misunderstanding by most Buddhists arises from the fact that the Buddha usually places the greatest emphasis on what is NOT the Soul or Self. Thus, the physical body, feelings, thoughts, impulses, and ordinary consciousness are labelled as "non-Self" or "non-Soul" (anatman). These elements of our worldly being are impermanent and subject to change and dissolution, so cannot sensibly be deemed our Soul. They make up our "mundane self", and that mundane self is dismissed as "a lie" by the Buddha. This fictitious worldly self or ego has no enduring reality - it is a constantly mutating stream of reincarnating desires which never find lasting satisfaction. Our worldly self is one big and painful illusion.

 

Most Buddhists stop here and preach this as the highest truth about selfhood. This, however, is only half the story. In the final phase of his teaching career, the Buddha revealed that there exists within each sentient being an innermost essence, which knows of no change and no death. He called this "the True Self" or "True Soul" (satya-atman). He also termed it the Buddha-Dhatu - the "Buddha-Principle" - or the tathagata-garbha, the "embryonic Buddha" latent within us.

Yes, but this Buddha-Dhatu cannot be what Aaron is referring to because it cannot, by definition, carry the karmic debt forward as it is clearly outside of samsara. I share Aaron's skepticism on this point. It's ironic that Buddhists work hard to underline the differentiation Buddhism and Hinduism, and yet the very thing that I find most off-putting about Buddhism is this refusal to let go of the concept of reincarnation which makes much more sense in the context of Hinduism than it does in the context of Budhhism...