What's the relationship between the brain and the mind?

[Todd]

Awareness is not a division because awareness is not an ordinary name. Unawareness is awareness. This doesn't apply to other names. For example light is not also darkness. But you have to be aware of not being aware to have the concept of unawareness. So unawareness is a form of awareness.

 

 

I get what you are saying here, but you could define other words similarly to the way that you have defined awareness. For example, light is also darkness. The light blinds one to the dark, and so it is a kind of dark, and the dark reveals the dark and so it is a type of light. Hence all is a form of light. The true light is beyond all appearances of light and dark. It is what makes those appearances possible. I could do the same thing with dark.

 

What you're describing is 1) very powerful and 2) not whatsoever contradicting the view of intent I present. In my view, we as humans, ultimately do not understand the true extent and the true nature of our own intent. Human flavor of intent is only the starting point for us drunkards. You can never forgo your intent (eternal responsibility... it can be a harsh mistress). The best you can do is relax it so deeply that the ensuing experience goes beyond your understanding of what you are. Ultimately you can never really lose yourself. You can only lose your limited idea of yourself. You can lose something that you never were to begin with. You can lose a role but not yourself.

 

I like this.

 

Who is "we"? Do you mean yourself and your friends?

 

I was referring a large portion of humanity, including myself. I was especially referring to Western culture, in particular during the dark and middle ages, though I think that this tendency plays out in most people and cultures to one degree or another. Has it never played out in you?

 

This isn't surprising since when scientists investigate matter they really investigate their own mind in the most bass ackwards way possible. If the scientists remain disciplined and principled, sticking to reason and experimentation, they will find the same truth eventually, but it will be a very very slow and confusing road.

 

 

My view doesn't ignore it. My view allows the study of structures as beliefs and habit. Habit is almost like matter with some crucial differences. Habit is not defined to be external to awareness. Habits can be arbitrarily difficult to change, but they can be changed intentionally in every case.

 

For me what the scientists are talking about is useful information because it presents to me the baseline of my subconscious habits.

 

Also, science is mostly honest. Only the metaphysics inherent in science are wrong. But insofar the scientists are disciplined and principled, they are really like deluded spiritual aspirants. They are the good guys who will eventually get the truth because they are searching for it sincerely and engage, even if they do have blind-faith assumptions that get in their way.

 

So I have a rather friendly relationship with science, even if the scientific community fears someone like me.

 

Also, I don't view all habits as bad. This computer here is a mind habit, but it's an enjoyable one. I don't plan to dissolve it soon. That's just one example.

 

 

Yeah, I can see how you have included the matter-like aspects of existence via your view of beliefs/habits. I think that can be a very useful way of seeing things.

 

I am glad that you have a good relationship with science, despite its failings. I think our view in this area is quite similar.

 

I am convinced you understood everything I said in this specific discussion.

 

I also notice you don't really argue against my view per se. You mostly try to promote and defend the view of there being something unaware, call it matter if you like, permanently existing beyond awareness and generating it and then quasi-intelligently interfering with the contents of awareness. It can't be God, because God is the ultimate awareness, if anything. But it's like God in many ways, yea? Like God you have to take it on faith and like God you claim it produces interference that you then claim to be intelligible and discernible.

 

Well, since I am convinced you understand what I said so far, maybe you can start over, forget my view for a second, and try to present your view from start to finish, give reasons for it, explain its benefits, etc. There is hardly any point in talking about my view now, since we both seem to agree to disagree and whatnot, and I am sure you understand my view enough to be able to reject it authentically (which is your right in my books).

 

 

I don't really have a view that I hold to be true. They are all provisional, potentially useful, and potentially harmful, but not true to me. I might take the list of possible views that I made above and make a brief statement of what I see as their advantages and disadvantages, or uses and contradictions, to use more medical language. I might flesh out a somewhat more inclusive view of awareness as source of matter and matter as source of awareness, though it might end up looking remarkably similar to your views, as yet unexpressed. It would have to do with a broader, or more fundamental awareness, which manifests matter as an aspect of itself, out of which arise individual awarenesses, which participate in this more fundamental awareness and are never truly separate from it. I'd only do it as a story though, like a very rough hypothesis.

 

It will be several days before I am back on the forum, however.

 

 

[Marblehead]

... strong, solid, indestructible, constant, everlasting, timeless, infite, etc.

 

Hehehe. I'm not too sure about all this but be that as it may.

 

I'm still reading all the posts in this thread so I couldn't miss your response.

 

I'm still wondering about the need for the word 'mind'.

 

Physical scientists like to talk about the brain - philosophers like to talk about the mind. But they both stay in my book for now.

[Marblehead]

Could take a while and also displease folks. It's all tied up like a bunch of crossed wires:-) Many things to consider:-) I think a better idea is to look at the various religions from a practice standpoint. I've found if I do that then they all seem to say quite similar things. But without practice IMO they're dangerous. But maybe I'm outdated when it comes to such things.

 

I think the theologians have a good handle on it (it is after all their "science"). I should go talk to some. There was a guy here called Prince who did both I think.

 

Yeah, all religions try to deal with the human condition. Some do better than others. And so true, a Christian who does not follow the teachings of Jesus cannot be said to be a Christian, in my opinion. Same with any other religion.

[Birch]

Yeah, all religions try to deal with the human condition. Some do better than others. And so true, a Christian who does not follow the teachings of Jesus cannot be said to be a Christian, in my opinion. Same with any other religion.

Right. It's a bit like the difference between me watching "so you think you can dance" and Otis.

(actually, I CAN dance, but you get my drift?)

[Marblehead]

Right. It's a bit like the difference between me watching "so you think you can dance" and Otis.

(actually, I CAN dance, but you get my drift?)

 

Hehehe. I can't dance. Those days are gone for me.

 

Yep, there is a difference between talking and walking.

[Todd]

"...considerations of our human nature. The common way that spiritual and religious traditions have approached this is to ignore it."

 

Sorry to cherrypick Todd but I believe the opposite. What I believe is that many religions and traditions have a grasp (in many cases a pretty firm one at that) of "human nature" that they use to leverage whatever needs/wants leveraging. Ever notice the messages vehicled alongside all the "love"? And why the dualism all over the teachings? Why the requirement to worship as a group/community/sangha? Sounds weird huh? But why on earth would the first thing a child hears at church be that he/she is a sinner/born of sin or that the ego needs killing, or any variant of the latter?

I'm pondering it and haven't concluded yet but I saw your sentence as an opportunity.

 

 

Hi -K-. Sorry for the long delay in responding. Did you edit this post? It reads very differently now than when I first read it.

 

I realized that a major unresolved aspect of my incarnation is distrust, so it is not surprising that I sometimes have quite a negative reaction to distrust in others, especially when in any way directed at me. Of course, there is a good aspect of distrust, but when it just runs, to both my detriment and benefit, then it is good to recognize it and meet it.

 

I think these are good questions. I think a huge part of life is coming to know what you can and can't trust, both in oneself and in others. Another huge part is how to meet that which is "untrustable", both in oneself and in others, since it comes up often enough and can't really be avoided. Its hard to do the second without a good feel for the first, however.

 

At the risk of making an absurdly long post that most people will skip over, I came across this part of a response from Adya to a student in a recording from a recent retreat, recently, and I want to share it with you. Might seem only tangentially related, but fwiw. (I left in all the false starts of speech, and tried to retain some of the emphasis, for better or worse):

"In my own search, when it really, actually took off in a really, real way was when I just severed my relationship to anybody else's experience, and I just thought 'I don't give a damn what anybody else is experiencing. I'm not gonna chase what they are experiencing. Why would I chase something that I don't even know if it's real or exists? How could I know if it's real or not until I've experienced it?'

 

Right? And I was all… you know, only then do we realize, 'I'm chasing an idea. And the idea came from somebody else. I wasn't born with this idea.' And the best thing I ever did was just take like a sword out and just sever the idea, and then I was left with what was intimately so, here—intimately so. And at that moment I realized two things, andthey don't sound like big realizations, but they were. Is the one thing I wanted was truth; I wanted reality. I didn't want to feel better. I didn't want to end up blissed out. I did want to.. I didn't care what I experienced. I didn't care if thetruth was lovely or terrible. If.. I didn't care what if it was. If it was heaven or hell, it didn't matter. I wanted the truth. I didn't even know why I wanted the truth. I didn't even know why.

 

And that was a really useful thing to know, because nobody gave that to me. And the second thing that I knew was I had no idea what that was. And if I could stay with those two things,those were mine, those weren't given to me by somebody, or a book, or an image to chase, or somebody else's story. Those were mine. This desire for truth, for reality, and the knowledge that I didn't know what it was. And I was gonna stay with what was true until I knew. You see what I mean?

 

And that's.. so what.. that doesn't mean that's what you'll find, when you look inside, but it's when we really intimately find out, 'What belongs to me?'

 

It's what I'm always asking people, 'What is this about for you?" You see? You know? Not what you were promised would happen, if you did the spiritual things right. You see? If you do this, you'll end up like this. That's.. that's the sales plan for enlightenment, and it's basically abunch of nonsense. And it's not yours and it's not intimate.

 

But each person comes with something that is very unique to them, that draws them. It is what it really is about for them, 'for me'. And like I said on the first night, I've met people doing this forty years, and they've never really, really looked at what this is about 'for me'.They're chasing somebody else's experience. No matter who the somebody else.. some guru's experience, something somebody else said, and when they finally connect in: 'What's mine? What's this about for me? Something that's in me, in my blood and in my bones, that thing that drives me tofind out what it is, that one thing, not the top two, that one thing, that is the most important thing, that if I go to my grave unresolved, I will have not been completely true to my own incarnation.' That thing. See what I mean? You get the feel of it?

 

Nobody can give us that. That's the beauty of it. Nobody can give you that. You have that. You.. everybody in here comes with that. And when you really tap into that,then what you hear from the outside serves that. It's not a stand in for that. It's not a surrogate for that. It then serves your intention. Then the teachings can serve your intention. Then you can hear them in such a way that they serve you, rather than make you chase your tail indefinitely."

Edited August 16, 2011 by Todd

[Birch]

Hi -K-. Sorry for the long delay in responding. Did you edit this post? It reads very differently now than when I first read it.

 

I realized that a major unresolved aspect of my incarnation is distrust, so it is not surprising that I sometimes have quite a negative reaction to distrust in others, especially when in any way directed at me. Of course, there is a good aspect of distrust, but when it just runs, to both my detriment and benefit, then it is good to recognize it and meet it.

 

I think these are good questions. I think a huge part of life is coming to know what you can and can't trust, both in oneself and in others. Another huge part is how to meet that which is "untrustable", both in oneself and in others, since it comes up often enough and can't really be avoided. Its hard to do the second without a good feel for the first, however.

 

At the risk of making an absurdly long post that most people will skip over, I came across this part of a response from Adya to a student in a recording from a recent retreat, recently, and I want to share it with you. Might seem only tangentially related, but fwiw. (I left in all the false starts of speech, and tried to retain some of the emphasis, for better or worse):

"In my own search, when it really, actually took off in a really, real way was when I just severed my relationship to anybody else's experience, and I just thought 'I don't give a damn what anybody else is experiencing. I'm not gonna chase what they are experiencing. Why would I chase something that I don't even know if it's real or exists? How could I know if it's real or not until I've experienced it?'

 

Right? And I was all… you know, only then do we realize, 'I'm chasing an idea. And the idea came from somebody else. I wasn't born with this idea.' And the best thing I ever did was just take like a sword out and just sever the idea, and then I was left with what was intimately so, here—intimately so. And at that moment I realized two things, andthey don't sound like big realizations, but they were. Is the one thing I wanted was truth; I wanted reality. I didn't want to feel better. I didn't want to end up blissed out. I did want to.. I didn't care what I experienced. I didn't care if thetruth was lovely or terrible. If.. I didn't care what if it was. If it was heaven or hell, it didn't matter. I wanted the truth. I didn't even know why I wanted the truth. I didn't even know why.

 

And that was a really useful thing to know, because nobody gave that to me. And the second thing that I knew was I had no idea what that was. And if I could stay with those two things,those were mine, those weren't given to me by somebody, or a book, or an image to chase, or somebody else's story. Those were mine. This desire for truth, for reality, and the knowledge that I didn't know what it was. And I was gonna stay with what was true until I knew. You see what I mean?

 

And that's.. so what.. that doesn't mean that's what you'll find, when you look inside, but it's when we really intimately find out, 'What belongs to me?'

 

It's what I'm always asking people, 'What is this about for you?" You see? You know? Not what you were promised would happen, if you did the spiritual things right. You see? If you do this, you'll end up like this. That's.. that's the sales plan for enlightenment, and it's basically abunch of nonsense. And it's not yours and it's not intimate.

 

But each person comes with something that is very unique to them, that draws them. It is what it really is about for them, 'for me'. And like I said on the first night, I've met people doing this forty years, and they've never really, really looked at what this is about 'for me'.They're chasing somebody else's experience. No matter who the somebody else.. some guru's experience, something somebody else said, and when they finally connect in: 'What's mine? What's this about for me? Something that's in me, in my blood and in my bones, that thing that drives me tofind out what it is, that one thing, not the top two, that one thing, that is the most important thing, that if I go to my grave unresolved, I will have not been completely true to my own incarnation.' That thing. See what I mean? You get the feel of it?

 

Nobody can give us that. That's the beauty of it. Nobody can give you that. You have that. You.. everybody in here comes with that. And when you really tap into that,then what you hear from the outside serves that. It's not a stand in for that. It's not a surrogate for that. It then serves your intention. Then the teachings can serve your intention. Then you can hear them in such a way that they serve you, rather than make you chase your tail indefinitely."

 

 

Hey Todd!

 

No I hadn't edited it, but I did have to go check to make sure

Why did it read differently? Well, there's something about that activity that is not entirely mine, not entirely yours either :-) But I digress!

 

I loved your reply. I felt very good reading it. Had you noticed though that it wasn't yours but Adyashanti's? I guess that's alright. Most music I listen to isn't mine either but I still enjoy it when people share what they like with me :-)

 

About the trust thing. I don't think it's a sweeping thing one does or does not do or is or is not. Discernment, always :-) I don't think it's worth saying 'I don't trust people' because in at least one case you must have trusted and the people/the person failed you, otherwise you wouldn't bother with anything related to this 'trust' stuff.

 

Of course there are people one shouldn't and can't trust (I can think of a few:-)). I don't get what's the deal about understanding that. IMO it would be foolish to attempt to push your 'trust' on someone that blatantly shows they don't deserve it. Same goes the other way too :-).

 

The other thing I liked about what you quoted was that it showed an understanding of the progression of path and the fact that it has to be taken up by the person themselves. Has to be relevant. Can't rest on precepts :-)

 

Good stuff :-) Thank you!

 

Edited to add. wiredscience/2011/08/the-rhetoric-of-neuroscience/

Edited August 17, 2011 by -K-

[Todd]

 

I loved your reply. I felt very good reading it. Had you noticed though that it wasn't yours but Adyashanti's? I guess that's alright. Most music I listen to isn't mine either but I still enjoy it when people share what they like with me :-)

 

Are you talking about more than the quote I included when you say that the reply isn't mine but Adyashanti's?

 

If so, what do you mean by when you say "Adyashanti's" and what would make my reply "mine"?

 

There are a lot things that you could mean by this, so I can't really respond well without knowing what you mean.

 

The other thing I liked about what you quoted was that it showed an understanding of the progression of path and the fact that it has to be taken up by the person themselves. Has to be relevant. Can't rest on precepts :-)

 

Yeah, I like that too. It's so easy to get tunnel vision with regard to paths.

 

 

Good stuff :-) Thank you!

 

Edited to add. wiredscience/2011/08/the-rhetoric-of-neuroscience/

 

 

You're welcome! I enjoyed the link. Nice to have something on topic in a post, I guess.

 

 

[Birch]

Are you talking about more than the quote I included when you say that the reply isn't mine but Adyashanti's?

 

If so, what do you mean by when you say "Adyashanti's" and what would make my reply "mine"?

 

---

I meant your use of the quote:-)

It was a neat layered/nested illustration of the whole "mine" in practice, I thought.

 

Anyway, my consideration this morning is whether one can dissassociate ideas from "mind" and if not, then that would make "mind" at least partially distributed and if so it would make it at least partially fragmented.

 

So then i read the posts on awareness and the idea (sic) that this could be free from ideas or thoughts and I thought (hahaha) well that's the underlying fabric isn't it, except it's not underlying, it's more undulating through the 10k things which are distributed and fragmented. Sorry, I'm rambling a bit:-)