What exactly is the mind and where is it located ?

[goldisheavy]

The mind is a stream of thoughts

 

Definitely not.

 

The mind is a capacity to know, to experience, and to will.

[Songtsan]

The mind is a stream of thoughts, constantly flowing in our consciousness. There is no "location" of the mind, it is everywhere our consciousness is. The thoughts are objects that have labels but no physical "form" (as they don't exist in mundane space, only in time).

 

We often mistake our mind as being consciousness. The mind is nothing but a stream of thoughts. It's role is to bridge the physical body and material universe with consciousness. Consciousness stands on it's own, mind doesn't exist in the absence of thoughts.

 

I agree mostly, although I think that mind exists in latent form when unused - it is like a power tool that is turned off. It doesn't cease to exist - it is merely unpowered.

[Songtsan]

You didn't get what I was saying if you say you agree with me and then say "yes we are machines."

 

I say yes we are and no we are not....they are both true simultaneously....the mind is a machine, the seer is not...

[goldisheavy]

I am not a machine. My mind isn't a machine. My body is not a machine. In fact, I don't even think the so-called "universe" is mechanical at all. There are habits which produce machine-like behaviors. That's as close as I get to machines.

[goldisheavy]

I say yes we are and no we are not....they are both true simultaneously....the mind is a machine, the seer is not...

 

Then you don't agree with me.

[Songtsan]

Definitely not.

 

The mind is a capacity to know, to experience, and to will.

 

good point - It is more than a stream, it the coherent organization and collusion of objects, not random at all, yet also having some basis of randomness...when concrete patterns are recognized out of the chaos of randomness, the mind makes connections and assumes stances...sometimes they are valid, sometimes not.

[goldisheavy]

good point - It is more than a stream, it the coherent organization and collusion of objects, not random at all, yet also having some basis of randomness...when concrete patterns are recognized out of the chaos of randomness, the mind makes connections and assumes stances...sometimes they are valid, sometimes not.

 

The mind should not be defined in terms of the momentary appearances. Appearances come and go, but the mind doesn't come and go. The mind is impossible to switch off or on. People confuse appearances with the mind all the time. When appearances stop people wrongly believe the mind has stopped, when the entire cognition of "stopping" is evidence of mind functioning just fine.

 

This is similar to how Ananda was confused about seeing in the Shurangama Sutra. Ananda thought that if the room is dark, seeing stops. He was not recognizing darkness as a phenomenon, in other words. He thought seeing only happened when the light was on. And then Buddha goes on to correct his misapprehension.

[Songtsan]

I am not a machine. My mind isn't a machine. My body is not a machine. In fact, I don't even think the so-called "universe" is mechanical at all. There are habits which produce machine-like behaviors. That's as close as I get to machines.

 

machine is just a concept:

 

via wikipedia: "A machine is a tool containing one or more parts that uses energy to perform an intended action."

 

that sounds good enough for right now.

 

If we are going to define things, we should find an agreed upon base of labels.

 

"What is mind?" is a very debatable question as we are doing right now...

 

honestly though, I do not know what mind is, even though I use it and it uses me.

 

At the same time, as I have been using for most of my life, I intrinsically know what it is to a great extent.

 

I think I might look deeper into this question....go find a few books maybe...

 

I assume much (at times), but in this moment, I am assuming nothing.

[Songtsan]

Then you don't agree with me.

 

not 100% no...who can EVER agree 100% - it's not possible, even if you think you are 100% in agreement...

 

as far as trends, I imagine we have much similarity as far as our minds go....subtle differences, yet gross similarities...

 

it is the subtle that is so intoxicating to mind genies like us.

 

The Sea of Ideas, an Ocean of Concepts...perhaps we have a shared ocean, yet separate seas...

[Songtsan]

The mind should not be defined in terms of the momentary appearances. Appearances come and go, but the mind doesn't come and go. The mind is impossible to switch off or on. People confuse appearances with the mind all the time. When appearances stop people wrongly believe the mind has stopped, when the entire cognition of "stopping" is evidence of mind functioning just fine.

 

This is similar to how Ananda was confused about seeing in the Shurangama Sutra. Ananda thought that if the room is dark, seeing stops. He was not recognizing darkness as a phenomenon, in other words. He thought seeing only happened when the light was on. And then Buddha goes on to correct his misapprehension.

 

So if I enter full absorption without seed, where is mind then?

[goldisheavy]

 

honestly though, I do not know what mind is, even though I use it and it uses me.

I do know what the mind is, however.

 

A close cousin of cognition is recognition. It's easier for people to think of recognition than it is to think of cognition which isn't linked to the past. Recognition is associated with the past, and so recognition is a specific type of cognizance (one "unit" of cognizance being cognition as I term it).

 

Now, for example, when light is lit, you recognize light. However, in a perfectly dark room, what happens to your ability to recognize light? It's unaffected. This continual ability to recognize that is not affected by the momentary phenomena is a clue about mind's nature.

[goldisheavy]

 

So if I enter full absorption without seed, where is mind then?

It's in the recognition of that same full absorption as "full absorption without seed."

[TaoMaster]

Great post - haven't digested it yet, but my initial reaction was to state there is no single doer or generator - that the generative process is always a co-originated act. Nothing acts in independence. So there is no generator - only generation itself. No matter how much I feel that I have self will, it is the combined and total acts/will of reality that produce what I consider 'my own' actions. I don't ever, nor have I ever, acted by myself. Every step I take is a confluence of rivers. Nothing occurs in isolation. So if mind generates actions, which it does from a relativistic standpoint, it is still part of a causal chain, and thus not the originator.

 

I have never seen an original impulse within myself. It has always been action/reaction chains of the co-created type.

 

I am not trying to absolve my 'self' of responsibility, but I do think that there are 'no ones' doing anything.

thx , correct , no single thing or pole of the yang yin generates another thing. Its takes two .

 

like genrates like and dislike genrates dislike

 

when you like me I like you and when I like you , you like me

 

when you hate me I hate you and when i hate you you hate me back

 

its a duality law thing. and there are exceptions to this depending on the degree like and dislike

 

its not just about me and you either.

 

we will hate or like others even tho its not the others who are hating or likeing us.

 

you can like me and since i cant like you back i will like someone else.

 

same applies to hate

 

I think many have the karma thing wrong sometimes

 

karma is this

 

when you like a person and let them know , they will like you back

 

when you hate a person and let them know they will hate you back .

 

when you get this interesting dualitic law understood , you will know exactly what to do when a person hates you .

 

Like them back

 

it wont be easy at first but it works . It generates a really crappy sensation too .

 

its alomst impossible to like someone back when theyve socked you in the nose in a fit of anger and hatred.

 

The dulistic urge is to sock them back .

 

any form of yin will do this

 

My house was broken into by a thief ( Yin ) took my ipad and an old cell phone and broke the back door to my house. I knew who was involved and I wanted to tear their heads off and feed them to a pack of wild pigs I was so ( yin ) angry .

 

Having done so I would have felt better ( yang ) but it never happened .

 

this isnt about psychology its about law plain and simple . It always has been the duality law but the illusion is that its a psychological matter.

 

Psychologists make a ton of money from this stuff and even they do not see through the illusion .

 

Psych means spirit, ology means to study . But its not spiritual . Its a legal matter .

 

 

Peace!

[Songtsan]

I do know what the mind is, however.

 

A close cousin of cognition is recognition. It's easier for people to think of recognition than it is to think of cognition which isn't linked to the past. Recognition is associated with the past, and so recognition is a specific type of cognizance (one "unit" of cognizance being cognition as I term it).

 

Now, for example, when light is lit, you recognize light. However, in a perfectly dark room, what happens to your ability to recognize light? It's unaffected. This continual ability to recognize that is not affected by the momentary phenomena is a clue about mind's nature.

 

It is hardwired. Neuronal nets that fire when specific objects/frequencies are encountered. Mind is definitely body. It is also energy. It is also space. It is dependent on all laws of physics, so it is also gravity, weak/strong forces, and so on.

 

mind is all things. Actually, all things are all things.

 

Everything is everywhere. Nothing is nowhere.

 

I adhere occasionally to the All is Mind school of thought...even many scientists at top universities do...and yet, in the end all we are doing is trying to define the undefinable, state that which can only be known directly.

 

'What is mind?' is equivalent to asking 'What is Tao?'

 

Endless answers...

[Songtsan]

It's in the recognition of that same full absorption as "full absorption without seed."

 

but if there is recognition, then doesn't that imply two things - the recognizer and the recognized? How is that total absorption?

[Songtsan]

thx , correct , no single thing or pole of the yang yin generates another thing. Its takes two .

 

like genrates like and dislike genrates dislike

 

when you like me I like you and when I like you , you like me

 

when you hate me I hate you and when i hate you you hate me back

 

its a duality law thing. and there are exceptions to this depending on the degree like and dislike

 

its not just about me and you either.

 

we will hate or like others even tho its not the others who are hating or likeing us.

 

you can like me and since i cant like you back i will like someone else.

 

same applies to hate

 

I think many have the karma thing wrong sometimes

 

karma is this

 

when you like a person and let them know , they will like you back

 

when you hate a person and let them know they will hate you back .

 

when you get this interesting dualitic law understood , you will know exactly what to do when a person hates you .

 

Like them back

 

it wont be easy at first but it works . It generates a really crappy sensation too .

 

its alomst impossible to like someone back when theyve socked you in the nose in a fit of anger and hatred.

 

The dulistic urge is to sock them back .

 

any form of yin will do this

 

My house was broken into by a thief ( Yin ) took my ipad and an old cell phone and broke the back door to my house. I knew who was involved and I wanted to tear their heads off and feed them to a pack of wild pigs I was so ( yin ) angry .

 

Having done so I would have felt better ( yang ) but it never happened .

 

this isnt about psychology its about law plain and simple . It always has been the duality law but the illusion is that its a psychological matter.

 

Psychologists make a ton of money from this stuff and even they do not see through the illusion .

 

Psych means spirit, ology means to study . But its not spiritual . Its a legal matter .

 

 

Peace!

 

This is the standard, but it is not absolute.

 

I have actively loved those who were actively hating me...and actively hated those who were actively loving me.

 

Appearances matter in this stuff of course, but there are no energetic laws regarding this stuff that resemble basic physics laws...anything is possible...

 

Find a Tonglen adept and you will see someone who counters hate with love...embraces the negative and returns positive...

[goldisheavy]

 

It is hardwired. Neuronal nets that fire when specific objects/frequencies are encountered. Mind is definitely body. It is also energy. It is also space. It is dependent on all laws of physics, so it is also gravity, weak/strong forces, and so on.

All this is wrong. Definitely wrong.

[goldisheavy]

 

but if there is recognition, then doesn't that imply two things - the recognizer and the recognized?

What do you mean by "recognizer"? Depending on how you construe it I will need to give different answers here. Most people construe "-ers" as phenomenal objects with specific characteristics such as tall, short, heavy, slow, etc. If this is what you mean, then no, it doesn't imply such a recognizer.

 

But you can make your "recognizer" sufficiently abstract, and then it will be implied, yes. For example, you can say that recognizer is a point of view. Of course a point of view is implied in any absorption.

 

Or you can make your recognizer volitional formation. Again, that too will be implied, because all absorptions are volitional formations.

[Songtsan]

All this is wrong. Definitely wrong.

 

I won't argue anymore.

 

I generally like to practice not-knowing.

 

Maybe tomorrow

 

What do you mean by "recognizer"? Depending on how you construe it I will need to give different answers here. Most people construe "-ers" as phenomenal objects with specific characteristics such as tall, short, heavy, slow, etc. If this is what you mean, then no, it doesn't imply such a recognizer.

 

But you can make your "recognizer" sufficiently abstract, and then it will be implied, yes. For example, you can say that recognizer is a point of view. Of course a point of view is implied in any absorption.

 

Or you can make your recognizer volitional formation. Again, that too will be implied, because all absorptions are volitional formations.

 

There is the seer, the seen, and the act of seeing.

 

This is all models however...I can't say much more, because I am dropping back into a 'know nothing' stance.

 

I take my posts seriously, yet at the same time, I know that they are empty of meaning in regards to their authenticity.

 

Just minds having fun with objects (concepts).

 

There is no prize.

[goldisheavy]

 

I won't argue anymore.

 

I generally like to practice not-knowing.

 

Maybe tomorrow

 

 

There is the seer, the seen, and the act of seeing.

 

So what is "the seer" in your view? Give me some examples. If your concepts aren't tied to anything, they're just free-floating words which mean nothing.

 

When I talk everything I say connects meaningfully to everything else I say. I don't rely on free-floating words. I can relate everything back to experience as well. So not only are my words meaningfully related to each other, but they also relate meaningfully to my experience as well.

 

This is all models however...I can't say much more, because I am dropping back into a 'know nothing' stance.

 

I take my posts seriously, yet at the same time, I know that they are empty of meaning in regards to their authenticity.

 

Just minds having fun with objects (concepts).

 

There is no prize.

 

Yea, my attitude is quite different from yours. I know what I am talking about.

 

There is a world of difference between someone who reads Buddhist or Indian rhetoric, where a lot of the criticism of "the seer" comes from, and someone who actually contemplates for oneself.

 

Don't be content with the rhetorical formulas. You need to investigate your own experience for yourself and on your own terms, if your goal is wisdom as opposed to mere cultural affiliation.

 

Of course if you are happy with cultural affiliation without any wisdom, then it's sufficient to parrot whatever schools of thought sound best to you. There is no need to actually contemplate or think critically.

Edited August 15, 2014 by goldisheavy

[dwai]

Definitely not.

 

The mind is a capacity to know, to experience, and to will.

That is the definition of mind per Vedanta, Yoga and Indian internal traditions. The capacity to know, experience and to will is of what is called the "antahakarana", of which the mind is an apparatus. As such, the "mind" is just a tool, a sensory apparatus.

[Marblehead]

so you think the mind is aware? What if I surgically removed all but the most necessary parts of your brain? You would have no executive function, no memory, just pure afferent or sensory input. Where did mind go? Did you lose awareness? Nope...

What we call "mind" is awareness, yes. Or consciousness, if you will. A function of the brain. (One can be conscious but not aware.)

[goldisheavy]

That is the definition of mind per Vedanta, Yoga and Indian internal traditions. The capacity to know, experience and to will is of what is called the "antahakarana", of which the mind is an apparatus. As such, the "mind" is just a tool, a sensory apparatus.

 

That's the problem with bringing Indian jargon into English. Not only do we not understand the Indian words, but we also destroy perfectly good English words by redefining them to fit with the Indian narrative.

 

Using intuitively understood English words is infinitely superior. That's what I do myself. I can explain anything using normal English.

 

With the way you defined "mind" you now have no word to talk about mind. This is crazy. Now if you really wanted to talk about mind you'd have to say "antawhatever", which is absurd.

Edited August 15, 2014 by goldisheavy

[TaoMaster]

machine is just a concept:

 

via wikipedia: "A machine is a tool containing one or more parts that uses energy to perform an intended action."

 

that sounds good enough for right now.

 

If we are going to define things, we should find an agreed upon base of labels.

 

"What is mind?" is a very debatable question as we are doing right now...

 

honestly though, I do not know what mind is, even though I use it and it uses me.

 

At the same time, as I have been using for most of my life, I intrinsically know what it is to a great extent.

 

I think I might look deeper into this question....go find a few books maybe...

 

I assume much (at times), but in this moment, I am assuming nothing.

i know a way you can find out first hand yourself rather than hear say from books, what i say or what anyone says . The best way to understand anything is to experience it first hand yourself.

 

pm me if youre interested.

 

there is much in our world that is misdefined. Once you sort it out for yourself , you will understand. Understanding brings happiness into anyones life .

[dwai]

 

That's the problem with bringing Indian jargon into English. Not only do we not understand the Indian words, but we also destroy perfectly good English words by redefining them to fit with the Indian narrative.

 

Using intuitively understood English words is infinitely superior. That's what I do myself. I can explain anything using normal English.

 

With the way you defined "mind" you now have no word to talk about mind. This is crazy. Now if you really wanted to talk about mind you'd have to say "antawhatever", which is absurd.

Just because you want to use less sophisticated definitions doesn't mean others should. If you have limited vocabary you will be limited in both understanding and expression.