Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

“What am I”?

RiddlewindRiddlewind oregon usa Explorer

I was looking at the “I” thread. It is an important thread, but because it became very long and degenerated somewhat I chose a fresh start with that very question we must and do ask ourselves: “What am I”.

The real purpose of the question this asks is for this: What is the “I am” that I am that I should accept and love as myself? We use self-perception as identity for this cause. This is to satisfy an emotional need. It is impossible that we not at least try to accept and love ourselves, even if we fail. The satisfaction of the mind demands it. What is the alternative: confusion and depression? This is also why ego is so powerful, not because it is anything real or true, but because it appears to be the answer that appears to satisfy that deep and powerful human need to accept and love ourselves. The problem it that is always fails. If you would accept and love yourself do not try. This may sound counter intuitive, but only when you cease trying do you succeed.

I think that we miss the idea of Buddhism if we neglect the tenant that we need seek be the Buddha Mind. I say this because the idea of the Buddha Mind is that It is your true Self, the wise and the permanent You in you. Ego is thoughts that are impermanent and not you. Now the following was taken from the “Gospel of Buddha”. This is not an ancient text but a compilation. Search Gospel of Buddha.

“Yet you love self and will not abandon self-love. So be it, but
then, verily, you should learn to distinguish between the false self
and the true self. The ego with all its egotism is the false self.”

While this may not be ancient text in itself, I believe that this text goes to the root of our problem and the fix. What is the ego-self for, but for identity? Identity is to identify with something that is or we think is us, and for the purpose to accept and love ourselves. If we assume that the Buddha Mind is our true Self, then, so must we identify with what that Mind is. To identify with the Buddha Mind is to identify with our true Self. The problem we face is that while identifying with ego is a manifestation of our imagination, the Nature of the Mind, which gives the Buddha Mind meaning, cannot be imagined; it can however be known. Thus knowledge trumps all perception. Thus we must give up the idea that we can imagine what we are. If this feels like emptiness to let go of our imaginary self’s then let it be so, for the emptiness shall pass and be filled with the truth in us.

Ego is the idea of self-perception that comes in the form of self-imagery. Thus we equate self-imagery with self-perception. This is a lie. What is self-imagery but an imaginary self that we only imagine? That self is then nothing more than a figment of the imagination. Ego, this false “I”, is purely imaginary, which means that ego is a fantasy and an illusion. It is this false self that we project from our imagination onto the world believing it reality, but as the way we wish others to perceive us, so that even the opinions of others might even define what we are. Because ego is a fantasy it means that as much as we may want it to be true, ego does not exist as anything real. Ego has no reality. It is only a reflection of what we chose to imagine as to see as our own personal reality. That “I” of ego is non-existent, yet, it is the idea that you have made the definition of your existence, even as it appears the power to create what you are and thus create your own reality. This is an impossibility that is not rational. You have no power to create the reality of what you are by imagining it.

There is more that I would say but perhaps this can get us stated and past some of the conversion that somehow the “I” we perceive is real by experience as opposed to the truth. The fact is that we have only two choices of a way to perceive ourselves, either as Mind, which is the Nature of the Mind as the Mind really is, or, as ego, which is purely a product of vain imaginations. Now while there are an infinite number of ways to perceive yourself as ego, they still amount to only one, illusion. Your choice between Being and ego is the choice between reality and illusion. If the Mind is what you are, and it is then:

Either you perceive yourself in truth, or, your self-perception is an illusion.

And if you live in that illusion how are you in your right Mind?

Any comments?

Cinorjerlobster
«1

Comments

  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Somewhere in the UK, Central-Southern.... Moderator

    Dependent Origination. I'm ok with it.

  • RiddlewindRiddlewind oregon usa Explorer

    Can you elaborate on "Dependent Origination"?

  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Somewhere in the UK, Central-Southern.... Moderator

    They are because I think they are, but they're not because I know they're not.
    Everything's just a collection of put-together stuff, and once you take the stuff apart, it's not a thing any more... and neither is the stuff. everything is just composed, but decomposes. everything 'is'. because I "see" it is. But it isn't really.

    And that's ok.

    person
  • BunksBunks Australia Veteran

    Dependent Origination aka Dependent Arising:

    "All phenomena (including people) depend on other factors for their existence. They are dependent in three ways:

    1. All functioning things in the world arise depending on causes. Think of the various causes and conditions that have come together for this body to be what it is right now. On top of our mothers egg and fathers sperm and all the food we've eaten, think about all the causes and conditions that made these things arise as well.

    2. Phenomena exist depending on their parts. If we dissect our body for instance, it is made up of many non-body things e.g. limbs, organs etc. Each of these is in turn composed of molecules, atoms and sub atomic particles.

    3. Phenomena exist in dependence upon being conceived and given a name. For example, Tenzin Gyatso is the Dalai Lama because people conceived of that position and gave him the title.

    Conclusion: Because nothing exists on its own, we can see that things are more fluid and dependent than we previously thought."

    • Venerable Thubten Chodron
    personShoshinRuddyDuck9
  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Somewhere in the UK, Central-Southern.... Moderator

    'S wot I said, innit....?

    Bunks
  • personperson Where is my mind? 'Merica! Veteran

    Even if we get beyond the small ego and enter an experience of something greater, that greater thing also falls under the sway of dependent origination. We can call it the Self or the Mind but all the capital letters in the world won't free it from dependence on factors other than itself for its existence.

    There is the notion of the uncreated, the unborn in Buddhism but as soon as you put an idea or a label on it, it ceases to be uncreated and unborn.

    I don't subscribe to the idea that liberation and the death of an arhat means annihilation, so it seems like there's something left but when the Buddha was asked this question he refused to answer saying it would be incorrect to say the Buddha existed, didn't exist, both existed and didn't exist or neither existed and didn't exist.

    I think in the realm of talk and ideas its better to stay in the world of dependent origination and leave the Buddha Minds and True Selves to the world of direct experience.

    Bunksnamarupa
  • And if you live in that illusion how are you in your right Mind?

    <3
    In the dervish tradition we say, 'Increase in Love'. In other words, as you too mention, we are understanding through the left Mind, the one that needs to be left on the near shore. However the Far Shore (Nirvana) is samsara (the near shore).

    Buddha Mind for sale. One careless owner ...

  • If you perceive yourself in truth, you have to admit that you are an illusion. Doesn't seem like it is either-or, rather there is space for truth and illusion in alert awareness. Who among us is in his right mind, I ask you?

    lobster
  • namarupanamarupa Veteran
    edited August 2016

    Trying to define self or not self too often can sometimes create a thicket of views, or may obstruct the beginner's mind

    lobsterCinorjerRuddyDuck9
  • RiddlewindRiddlewind oregon usa Explorer

    The Mind that is the Source of Love is the true Self, the ego is a false source that is an illusion of Love. This Mind stands alone for what It is and is dependent upon nothing other than Itself and what It is. Love can be our experience but the Mind does not at all depend upon our thoughts or experiences, it stands alone an untouchable. Without this Mind Love does not exist. It is because this Mind is unchangeable that it is your true Self. Ego is the enemy of this Mind because ego is the enemy of Love. Meaning; that if we abide in ego we are not in our right Mind or our true Self. What is Love? No one knows -it is the mystery of the Mind. But it is a mystery we can experience, and this is our Source of bliss. The idea is not to define yourself at all. The idea is not to try to imagine or love yourself at all.

    The subject that I presented has nothing to do with experiences in, or dependencies on the the world. Your true Mind is beyond any "dependent origination". And let us be thankful for that is our salvation.

    We have sought to satisfy the mind.
    The truth is that only the Mind can satisfy us.

    There is nothing in ego to define, it does not exist. The Mind cannot be defined because unconditional Love cannot be defined. Mind is Spirit, because Love is Spirit.

    If you wish to accept that there is no truth or that illusory perception is ok then that is your choice. It is not mine.

  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Somewhere in the UK, Central-Southern.... Moderator
    edited August 2016

    @Riddlewind, Please, when quoting, state sources of quotations and provide links and references. It's what we require.

    Could you tell us where your opinions originated?
    Many thanks

  • @Riddlewind, be careful.

    In other words, knowing is not the same as digested. A vehicle, which included mind, body and woo or spirit must harmonise. If this does not happen the spouting of platitudes can overwhelm the conventional well being.

    We may end up a head case. Understanding is to know what we know. If you have come to spread your great insights, then you need to answer one simple question for us. Are you enlightened?

  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Somewhere in the UK, Central-Southern.... Moderator

    @lobster, first permit me to ask that he answer my points first.
    We need links and references, and some kind of idea as to where he has developed this idea of 'spirit', because it's certainly not Buddhism....

    person
  • SpinyNormanSpinyNorman It's still all old bollocks Veteran
    edited August 2016

    @federica said:
    @lobster, first permit me to ask that he answer my points first.
    We need links and references, and some kind of idea as to where he has developed this idea of 'spirit', because it's certainly not Buddhism....

    It would be interesting to know the source. It sounds a little like the HIndu idea of seeing through maya ( illusory phenomenal world ) to find Atman/Brahman ( true self/reality/god ), or possibly something from a Christian source?

    federicaperson
  • DavidDavid some guy The Hammer in Ontario, Canada, eh Veteran

    I like it but it sounds like personal revelation. Not that there's anything wrong with that and I don't see a lack of compassion in the view but personal revelation needs as much or more scrutiny than peer reviewed doctrine.

    Ironically, the only permanence seems to be change. We can't put a face to change.

    federicaRuddyDuck9
  • RiddlewindRiddlewind oregon usa Explorer

    @federica said:
    @Riddlewind, Please, when quoting, state sources of quotations and provide links and references. It's what we require.

    The statement of us trying to satisfy the mind and that it is the mind that would satisfy us is my own personal revelation and not a quote. Without a personal revelation there is no finding or knowing. Without revelation everything is just words or thoughts, and until anything is internalized it remains without meaning.

    I seek only to know the Mind and in it know and experience of the Spirit of Love in me according to the Spirit of My Mind. Why should the term Spirit be so foreign? What if I say "He is of good spirits today" ? Would you question the term? Is there not such a spirit of peace or a spirit of joy or a spirit of happiness? Do you not speak of your studies as spiritual? I equate Love as spiritual. Love is Spirit, while Spirit is intangible to define, Love is still experiential. Love in us gives us a Spirit of peace. Ego brings a spirit of delusion to think to satisfy the mind as ego is our substitute for the Spirit of Love. Ego is the idea of self-love to bring us a Spirit of Love that is not Love but an illusion of Love. To me Love is our God-Self.

    You do not question what I have said but question my intentions and the authority to say them. I find this interesting. No I do not speak Buddhist-speak as you do, but that does not mean that I am not speaking of the workings of the mind. What do you seek? Do you seek to find peace of mind or to talk? I simply offer why there is no peace. It is because ego is the enemy of the Mind. Your true Self is what it has always been and is beyond our imaginations to know, but not beyond our understanding or experience to know. I cannot know what Love is but i can know what is not Love.

    I made a mistake in coming here in assuming that Buddhism is a study of the Mind and to attain oneness with the Mind. I adhere only to understanding the Mind and not any religious thought or doctrine. If what I say sounds like something else it is because it is universal in many religions, not because I adhere to any. All authority belongs to the Mind that we are, and not to doctrine of our ideas.

    @lobster said:
    Are you enlightened?

    If enlightenment is a journey to be one with my Mind then, yes, I am enlightened. If enlightenment is to have achieved perfection then, no. Enlightenment begins with questions. Enlightenment is the beginning of the journey as to also its end. Who can fix any point? I must begin some place. Let us question everything.

    Perhaps by making statements rather than putting to you questions as if I am confused and do not know anything seems to be a sign of arrogance. I can perfectly understand that you are wary of statements that propose a truth. Examine what I have said. Does it ring true or is it false? Does it mean anything? I spoke simply so that you can understand what is am saying, if that is too foreign to you I understand your apprehension. If I offer the source of cause and effect, which is the intention, then I am either speaking the truth or I am mistaken. Question that. Is it somehow a sin to speak words that is not purely Buddhism-speak. I have no agenda but to discuss the Mind, and of the Mind Love. If I have a different understanding than what you think Buddhism teaches and if this is what troubles you then I will leave the discussions. I do not wish to offend. And yet I seem to have offended some law by not speaking the way that you do, and what may be contradictory. Is tolerance not an adherence to Love, to Buddhism?

    What are any of us doing but seeking the truth? I am presenting something for you to question, and that is ok. What I am getting is the idea that there is no truth of the mind to know, or that it is impossible but for only certain special people to know. Everybody can know their Mind, this does not take someone special. There is no hierarchy. There are only fellow travelers, as the Mind would teach us that the perception of equality is first.

    What I propose is that to know the Mind is to know Love, that to love Love is to love yourself. We cannot know what love is in any normal idea of knowledge, but we can know the Way of Love and that Love must be unconditional or conditional. The Mind says Love is unconditional, which is Grace. Ego says that Love is always conditional.
    If we believe in ego then we believe in what opposes the Mind, and the Mind is buried and covered over in our mistaken belief. The idea of ego literally separates us from our Mind so that we disassociate ourselves from our Mind. Therefore we are not in our right Mind. Overall our mind becomes divided against itself as our thoughts are at war with the Mind is. Until this is remedied there can be no peace. We can meditate and deal with the symptoms all we want and forever but until the cause is corrected we remain in conflict. The cause for the conflict and lack of peace in us is simple, we believe in ego to provide rather than our Mind, we believe that ego is Love and that the Mind is not the Source of Love. It is your choice whether to believe this or not. Is this a truth? I say yes. These accusations of what I am saying is not about Buddhism reminds me of Christian dogma where if you do adhere to certain things that you are not a Christian. I do not pretend to be a Buddhist as you are. But because I believe that Buddhism is a study of the Mind and not a religion as such, then I am a Buddhist. The only true adherence is to the authority of the Mind, because the Mind holds the truth.

    What is awareness of your thoughts for? Is it simply to note your thoughts and then passively accept them and to think that these are part of you? There is no ego thought that is real, no emotional effect caused by ego that is real. If we identify with ego then so do we identify with the needs of ego and egos desires and fears and so on that causes unreal emotions. No matter how strong the effect is there is no emotion or need caused by ego that is real. And these effects must also be denied. Someone will probably say that this is delusional denial to deny what appear to be real effects. How is it delusional denial to deny what is false?

    The only reason to be aware of ego thoughts is to consciously deny their value and reality, otherwise you accept them as real as your own as you always have, and so you keep them as your reality, except that ego that as a cause is illusion, and so must any effect of ego be an illusion. What happens is that we find ourselves driven to satisfy ego thinking we are satisfying the mind when all we are doing is gratifying our illusions; and all of it to suffer in neediness and confusion for no good cause. Do not underestimate the power of the imagination to generate emotional needs and fears and desires, nor underestimate the imagination to twist and manipulate any other emotion, even Love.

    We are emotional beings and subject to the effects upon or psyche. If I speak in psychological terms how is that foreign to a study of the mind, of which the study of Buddhism also must be? Otherwise Buddhism is just another religion, with only a belief. No matter what you do you cannot escape your psychology, you can only question and choose which way your psychology takes you. And you do have a choice. And that is the point, to make the right choice. You have the choice to perceive yourself as Being or as ego, which is actually the choice to choose reality or illusion. I am not even here to define reality.
    What I can say is that Reality is where there is no illusion.
    I can say that humility is when you have no illusion of you.
    Only in humility do you live in reality.

    Again, everybody can know their Mind; this is not relegated to special people. This means that you do not have to think you are special to know. What we do have to do is make a shift in perception. You are Mind; you are not the body because the body is no one, nor are you ego because ego is only a picture of an imaginary self in bodily form. To identify with the body is the illusion of what you are. Does this mean that you as a body do not exist, no? It means only that your only true Self is of the Mind. It would certainly be a cruel joke that creation has played on us if we could not know our own Mind. Unless you know the Mind you cannot know what you are, and therefore you can never accept and love yourself. But unless you seek to know Love neither can you ever know your Mind. The problem is we confuse all the chatter and confusion in our head as being the mind, as if these thoughts and judgment constitute what the Mind is, when it is only the result of the disaster we caused by relying upon our vain imaginations, which is what ego is. If we think this disaster is the mind then the mind must be insane, because we must then conclude that the mind requires illusion and self-delusion to be satisfied. Any mind that requires illusion and self-delusion must be insane. The Mind is not insane, it is however important to understand that our thinking can be, and is. It is our thinking that must change, and it begins with self-perception. I believe in the Mind that is you to provide for you even if you do not.

    Obviously the respondents believe they are enlightened enough to doubt what I am saying and willing to make firm statements to reject what I am saying over appearances rather than looking specifically at what I am saying. Is my crime of statements as truths worse than yours? Or is it that you hate the idea of their being a truth? Do not be deceived to think that causality is any truth.

  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Somewhere in the UK, Central-Southern.... Moderator

    Well, as this is a Buddhist forum, you can hardly blame us for seeking some foundation to what you say.
    I appreciate your words, and sure they sound wonderful. But fundamentally, even a notion of a spirit, and a God, is an attachment.
    It may not surprise you to know we have had many experiences of members such as yourself who, after a while, either disappear into the woodwork, or leave, because our musings irritate them.
    I'm not suggesting you'll do either.
    But if you're going to participate on a Buddhist forum, it's not polite to come in and preach/advertise/announce/declare that you've found all the answers, and ride roughshod over those members who quite rightly and understandably seek clarification to what I must say, is an extremely verbose overture.
    It can get tiresome proposing our own views and having someone basically pooh-pooh them and tell us we know nothing.

    I'm sure you'll tell me that's not your intention.
    it definitely sounds like that, though.

    Kerome
  • @Riddlewind said:

    If enlightenment is

    when we stop asking questions because we know the answer to 'why' and 'what'

  • RiddlewindRiddlewind oregon usa Explorer

    I am a 69 yr old guy that’s been looking at this stuff for over 36 yrs. My awakening came in a divorce. Loss can do that. What I discovered is that everything I was suffering in the way of pain and neediness and loneliness was about ego, and ego about self-love. What I came to see was my dependence upon what I thought I was and needed that was to feed the ego and keep it alive, which I thought was to keep me alive. Ego permeated everything. I realized along the way that none of it was real, no real needs and none of the emotions from ego had any reality. It was all a lie. Where do you turn? Certainly to see ego thoughts as a lie I sought to remove what was false. Not that I knew the truth.

    As this occurred I realized a release and freedom. This self-denial has been my journey to detach and divest myself from everything that I would use to feed the ego, whether it was someone who needed and wanted me or loved me to whatever I had or did or possessed or of any dependency upon any ability that would define me. It is to say that nothing that I might appear to have or to be should be used as food. What I found accidently was a profound sense of Love and being able to love others unconditionally. And this Love I felt I surmised was also what my mind gave me and what I was supposed to be. If we love others because they give us something in return then that Love is for the egos sake, in that if I had the idea that if someone loves me in return, or even the idea of receiving recognition for that love, or any generosity I may give, then, I would be feeding on that and justify my own self-love. If I expected something in return I would then be loving conditionally and not unconditionally. I found that to love unconditionally was for my sake. I found that the more I loved the more Love I have in me. The Mind provides what you ask for. You reap what you sew.

    Unknown at the time I was listening to my Mind and my Mind was teaching me, even if the Mind was correcting me away for thoughts. I did not give myself the ability to love; all I did was get my thinking out of the way, my false perceptions, and Love came naturally. And that Love filled me and became my experience. I understood then that the Mind was the Source of Love and that I needed to do nothing to have it. I concluded then that Love is the very Nature of the Mind. And this I now know to be true and true in everyone. Do I attach myself to this Spirit, you bet I do, because this is my All and the truth in me. This required no thought in itself only the acceptance and belief that the Mind can to do what I cannot do. This is why I said it is the Mind that would satisfy us.

    No one knows how to love unconditionally, but the Mind does. All we can do is think to love unconditionally and get ourselves out of the way. I found that what I needed was Love and that the Mind provided, and that I do not at all need to provide any form of Love for myself. A Mind of Love has no need. Only the Mind can satisfy itself. Nor do I even need to think to perceive myself. Once you know that you are this Mind, then all perception ends and there is no more question of what you are. You are Love because that is the Nature of the Mind.

    What I thought and imagined I was evaporated into the nothingness that it was. The emptiness of ego that I thought filled me became nothing. My existence as I thought to know it was left to the void of nothingness. Ego was the idea of Love in the idea of self-love, but ego can only make us deprived of Love. These things I know and I have no interest in beating around the bush. I have no interest in supposition or maybes. Been there done that. Everything comes down to cause and effect from either right perception or wrong perception. Even as everything comes down to what Love is and what you are. To answer the question of what you are is to know the Mind, and you can. What I have said gets to the cause and the meat of the matter. Everything else is either superficial or illusion or working it out, or is entirely meaningless. This is the beginning and the end. I cannot apologize for what I know. Could I have said, “maybe” or “I think” or “perhaps”, or something else to pretend I do not know then, perhaps I would not have alienated you, which is regretful.

    Love to you.

    lobsterupekkaBunkspegembara
  • lobsterlobster Veteran
    edited August 2016

    @Riddlewind said:
    Love to you.

    Hooray. Now you are talking ... <3

  • @Riddlewind said:

    No one knows how to love unconditionally,

    that is because unconditional love is the byproduct of Enlightenment

    lobster
  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Somewhere in the UK, Central-Southern.... Moderator
    edited August 2016

    Perfect. Can't really argue with any of that. I would just ask you to understand, @Riddlewind , that having been a participant on this forum for nearly 12 years, (along with many others who have also been around the block a few times) you have no idea of the sheer volume of "enlightened" members who have joined us to preach, proselytise and pontificate on how they know everything and we know nothing, and they know best... Sadly it soon became all too obvious all too late that they were indeed, stuck in their own egos.
    Thank you for laying bare "where you've come from". Most ... Illuminating..

    Bunks
  • IronRabbitIronRabbit Veteran
    edited August 2016

    @federica said:....you have no idea of the sheer volume of "enlightened" members who have joined us to preach, proselytise and pontificate on how they know everything and we know nothing, and they know best... Sadly it soon became all too obvious all too late that they were indeed, stuck in their own egos.

    Awful lot of "I" , "Me" and "Mine" for one protesting the confines of ego. Too much telling and too little quelling, too. But don't give up.....

  • personperson Where is my mind? 'Merica! Veteran
    edited August 2016

    @Riddlewind said:
    ...Buddhism is a study of the Mind...

    It would be more accurate to say that Buddhism is a study of the mind (lower case m), rather than the Mind. Buddhism does look beyond the individual self or ego but doesn't grasp onto anything beyond as some sort of truly existent entity in itself.

    There have been lots of people claiming lots of truths over the centuries. Surely we can't be expected to simply take them all at face value and believe unquestionably. So how do we try to decide which revelation is authoritative and which misses the mark? Scientific investigation isn't really an option here so we have to resort to reason and philosophy. In that regard people have been placing counter arguments to your claims which is a reasonable way, IMO, to attempt to discern the truth.

    “The secret of a good sermon is to have a good beginning and a good ending; and to have the two as close together as possible.”
    ― George Burns

    “Writing is 1 percent inspiration, and 99 percent elimination.”
    ― Louise Brooks

  • SpinyNormanSpinyNorman It's still all old bollocks Veteran
    edited August 2016

    @Riddlewind said:The Mind provides what you ask for. ... I understood then that the Mind was the Source of Love and that I needed to do nothing to have it. ...This is why I said it is the Mind that would satisfy us.

    You mention the "Mind" a lot, could you give a brief description of what it actually is?

    And why "Mind" rather than"mind"?

  • @SpinyNorman said:

    You mention the "Mind" a lot, could you give a brief description of what it actually is?

    Yes I would like to know too as I think I lost mine ...

  • Steve_BSteve_B Far southwest corner of Indiana, USA Veteran

    @Riddlewind said:

    You do not question what I have said but question my intentions and the authority to say them. I find this interesting. No I do not speak Buddhist-speak

    I think what we are questioning is much more simple than that. If you leave out "I conclude that . . . " it leaves it unclear whether you're expressing your opinion or quoting something else. We're just trying to clarify so we can understand your context, that's all.

    Part of your self awareness seems to include a recognition of arrogance. A reader's internal response to your writings might be "That was interesting " or alternatively might be "That was arrogant." If you could choose between those two responses, which would you prefer? In fact, you CAN choose. Presentation matters.

  • KeromeKerome Did I fall in the forest? Europe Veteran

    @Riddlewind if you are concluding things, you are still thinking about them, and consequently are still within the mind, yet you say you stilled your thoughts and found that it's nature was love. How exactly does that work?

    Some of what you say sounds a lot closer to what Osho said than the teachings of Buddhism, I have to say. Osho talked a lot about ego and surpassing it, eventually going beyond the mind, and finding love in enlightenment.

  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Somewhere in the UK, Central-Southern.... Moderator

    Good responses. I see a lot of wholesome ideology in your post, @Riddlewind. Given the opportunity to reflect and digest, others have responded with salient and valid questions and opinions.
    It seems you have your rationale sorted out pat.

    under scrutiny, others have found material they would like to have clarified.

    I'm eager to hear your responses, because I think there is much material for cogitation, evaluation, digestion and discussion.

    personlobster
  • RiddlewindRiddlewind oregon usa Explorer

    @SpinyNorman said:

    You mention the "Mind" a lot, could you give a brief description of what it actually is?

    And why "Mind" rather than"mind"?

    >
    I capitalize Mind as I would capitalize it to make the distinction between a false self and our true Self, or the perception of Mind/Being verses our ego perception of what we are. I capitalize Love because Love is the nature of Mind/Being/Self. There is love as an action. But, and forgive me, there is Love as a Spirit we receive from the Mind because Mind is the Source of Love. I capitalize Mind to make the distinction between what Mind is and the thoughts that occur in our head. The problem is that we assume that the collection of our thoughts and emotions and ideas is what defines what the mind is, and therefor somehow defines what we are. You cannot separate the way you perceive yourself form the way you perceive the mind. Defining ourselves and what the mind is relegates us to the belief that we can define what the mind is with our thoughts, as in our beliefs and opinions. This is simply not true. These only reflect where our head and thinking is at, and perceiving this as Mind or even mind can produce a false perception of what you are. If we understand that our thoughts do not exist as anything real –after all it is just a thought, and if we consider that these thoughts are subject to whims and fancies of our vain imaginations, even that they are insane thoughts, of which all ego thoughts are, then, we cannot define what the mind is by them. Of course in the mind is where thoughts occur, but we must acknowledge that those thoughts belong to us, and did not spontaneously erupt from the mind itself. There is only one Thought the Mind itself has, and that is unconditional Love. There is more to say, but in the interest of brevity, and maybe i said too much, I would leave you with this idea: The Mind says, “Your thoughts are not My thoughts, nor is your way My Way”.

    Love to you

    namarupa
  • RiddlewindRiddlewind oregon usa Explorer

    I believe that the idea of permanence and impermanence in Buddhism has everything to do with the same question: “What am I”. What you are must be permanent. This I see permanence as the Mind/Being/Self that can never change and is unchangeable. This you can never lose but can be lost from it. This is in contrast to attaching ourselves to ideas of what we are that include our body, our abilities, our intellect, our occupation, or of those that love us, or what we possess, and so on. Each of these is impermanent and can be gone in the next moment of time. Even our thinking and our opinions and our experiences can change so how can we define what we really are in them?

    namarupalobsterpegembara
  • RiddlewindRiddlewind oregon usa Explorer

    @Kerome said:
    @Riddlewind
    Some of what you say sounds a lot closer to what Osho said than the teachings of Buddhism, I have to say. Osho talked a lot about ego and surpassing it, eventually going beyond the mind, and finding love in enlightenment.

    >

    I do not know Osho’s writings but I essentially agree, except that it is not to go beyond the mind but to find it. It is however to go beyond our thoughts that we think is the mind. Our thoughts do not constitute what the mind is, only what we choose to think and believe.

    @Kerome said:
    @Riddlewind if you are concluding things, you are still thinking about them, and consequently are still within the mind, yet you say you stilled your thoughts and found that it's nature was love. How exactly does that work?

    >

    Love is not a thought, but comes as a Gift and a presence of being. Thought does not do anything, knowledge does not do anything. Thought, reason, understanding, and concluding only brings us to a choice. That choice is everything because it leads us to either the keeping of our endless ego thoughts that are ever seeking to define what we think we are, or the choice of letting them go. The choice to make is actually simple, though the implementation is hard. It is the simple choice of whether to feed yourself as you trust in your imaginations, or, to trust in the Mind. The choice is made even simper because only the Mind actually provides real Love, while ego comes as an illusion of Love to gratify the mind but has no reality.

  • KeromeKerome Did I fall in the forest? Europe Veteran
    edited September 2016

    Some of this I am finding a little hard to follow - perhaps because of the lack of paragraphs - so I will just lift out a few shorter statements

    @Riddlewind said:
    I capitalize Mind as I would capitalize it to make the distinction between a false self and our true Self, or the perception of Mind/Being verses our ego perception of what we are. I capitalize Love because Love is the nature of Mind/Being/Self. There is love as an action. But, and forgive me, there is Love as a Spirit we receive from the Mind because Mind is the Source of Love. I capitalize Mind to make the distinction between what Mind is and the thoughts that occur in our head.

    The usual reason to capitalise a word is to draw a distinction between the way of commonly seeing that word, and a distinct or unusual way of seeing the same object. The above to me does not read like a clear distinction... It would be useful to discuss the mind separately from love, as well.

    I would not agree that the mind has very much to do with the self. My view is that the mind is a barrier to meditation, and thus to a clear conception of the self. Even if you have managed to still your thoughts, the mind's pattern of viewing things still influences what you see.

    The problem is that we assume that the collection of our thoughts and emotions and ideas is what defines what the mind is, and therefor somehow defines what we are. You cannot separate the way you perceive yourself form the way you perceive the mind.

    It seems a fallacy to me to say our thoughts define our mind. Rather it is the other way around: the mind defines our thoughts, and even the sum total of all our thoughts does not come close to defining the mind. And in terms of perceiving oneself, there are a range of aspects to the normal perception of self-identity such as body and history, the mind is only one of those. A human being is much more than just the mind.

    Of course in the mind is where thoughts occur, but we must acknowledge that those thoughts belong to us, and did not spontaneously erupt from the mind itself. There is only one Thought the Mind itself has, and that is unconditional Love.

    This seems to be attempting to twist the meaning of the word 'mind' beyond its normal meaning. Thoughts come from the mind, that is the very definition. The mind seems to have many thoughts, driven by different modalities of thinking - meditation shows this pretty clearly.

    There is more to say, but in the interest of brevity, and maybe i said too much, I would leave you with this idea: The Mind says, “Your thoughts are not My thoughts, nor is your way My Way”.

    Perhaps one's superconscious might say that. Can I suggest that you perhaps rethink your terminology, in order to arrive at a clearer, more comprehensible way of saying what you want to say while still adhering to the normal meaning of words?

  • @person said:
    So how do we try to decide which revelation is authoritative and which misses the mark?

    Intuition, Wisdom and discernment.

    When a series of statements are made we might find it more useful to question the veracity of the words rather than the source.

    "Words build bridges into unexplored regions."
    Adolf Hitler

    o:)

    RuddyDuck9
  • pegembarapegembara Veteran
    edited September 2016

    @Riddlewind said:
    I believe that the idea of permanence and impermanence in Buddhism has everything to do with the same question: “What am I”. What you are must be permanent. This I see permanence as the Mind/Being/Self that can never change and is unchangeable. This you can never lose but can be lost from it. This is in contrast to attaching ourselves to ideas of what we are that include our body, our abilities, our intellect, our occupation, or of those that love us, or what we possess, and so on. Each of these is impermanent and can be gone in the next moment of time. Even our thinking and our opinions and our experiences can change so how can we define what we really are in them?

    Is this Mind or the "One who Knows" separate from what it is conscious of like thoughts, emotions, sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touch?

    You said "the Mind does not at all depend upon our thoughts or experiences, it stands alone an untouchable". Are you not now separate from this Mind that you are describing?
    Where is this Knower(Subject) without the known(object)?
    Can consciousness exist without an object of consciousness?

    You said "This Mind/Being/Self that can never change and is unchangeable". Talking about it turns it into another object. There cannot be an ultimate subject/self standing all alone. Big Self implies there is a small self - they coarise dependently.

    Without thoughts, no thinker. Without the known, no knower.

    "It's good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this way, for in many ways I have said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.'

    "Consciousness, monks, is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html

    When we speak or think about the quality of awareness, there is also a subtle danger of trying to cast it into the form of some kind of immaterial thing or process. The word “awareness” is an abstract noun, and we get so used to relating to ordinary objects through conceptualizing them that we allow the habit to overflow and we can end up conceiving awareness in the same way. The heart can be aware, but trying to make awareness an object, in the same way that we would a tree or a thought, is a frustrating process.

    Just like the question “Can you see your own eyes?” Nobody can see their own eyes. I can see your eyes but I can’t see my eyes. I’m sitting right here, I’ve got two eyes and I can’t see them. But you can see my eyes. But there’s no need for me to see my eyes because I can see! It’s ridiculous, isn’t it? If I started saying “Why can’t I see my own eyes?” you’d think “Ajahn Sumedho’s really weird, isn’t he!” Looking in a mirror you can see a reflection, but that’s not your eyes, it’s a reflection of your eyes. There’s no way that I’ve been able to look and see my own eyes, but then it’s not necessary to see your own eyes. It’s not necessary to know who it is that knows—because there’s knowing.

    ~ Ajahn Sumedho, “What is the Citta?

    http://www.lionsroar.com/like-oil-and-water/

    namarupaWalkerRuddyDuck9person
  • Will_BakerWill_Baker Vermont Veteran

    @Riddlewind said:

    @federica said:
    @Riddlewind, Please, when quoting, state sources of quotations and provide links and references. It's what we require.

    The statement of us trying to satisfy the mind and that it is the mind that would satisfy us is my own personal revelation and not a quote.

    -Edmund Burke might disagree with you :-)

  • RiddlewindRiddlewind oregon usa Explorer

    @Kerome said:
    Some of this I am finding a little hard to follow - perhaps because of the lack of paragraphs - so I will just lift out a few shorter statements

    Well, it was all clear to me. LOL. Thank you for your patience.

    You said:

    I would not agree that the mind has very much to do with the self. My view is that the mind is a barrier to meditation, and thus to a clear conception of the self.

    >

    I think I would need a better understanding of what you think of as “self” and want a “clear conception” off, as well as what “conception” itself means to you so that we can work out the differences of understanding.

    Just for the sake of the discussion. Perceive the mind (Mind) as a tranquil sea. This is the true state of your mind, the Nature of the Mind that is your true Mind and your true Self: self-sufficient, uncluttered, pure, undefiled, unchangeable, ever present, and at peace, full of Love and Grace. This is why we cannot separate the discussion of the mind and in any way and exclude Love. Ego and all is ego thoughts are to somehow bring you the idea of self-love and therefore to bring you love, although what you receive from the mind instead is a delusional substitute for Love. Did I mention that ego is insane? Consider for now that Love is a Gift given us by the Mind to experience, as the Mind is the Source of Love for us, our Need, if you will. This is for the asking. It is however for us to learn how to ask, because every ego thought is the denial of Love for something else. Ego is anti-Love and has no Love and deprives us of Love because we reject the Mind that would give us Love.

    The Mind in its Natural state was tranquil. Then, somewhere and somehow we made a conscious choice and introduced a thought into our head/heart as to a way of perceiving ourselves while assuming that we needed to form an image of a self in order to perceive what we are to accept and love as ourselves. This is the ego construct or the ego illusion.

    Our choice is to accept the Mind as it really is, as to what we really are, or, to choose to accept the false self our imagination has generated as we desired the mind to invent. The fact is that there is still only one self, what we imagine as self has no reality. The question is then whether to accept reality of the true Nature of the Mind or illusion as what is true.

    If this “conception” of what you speak of to clarify is about imagining what you are then don’t do it. If it is to know and understand the mind as it really is then seek that knowledge and understanding. I am going to assume for now that the self (uncapitalized) that you are seeking to have a "clear conception" of is your true self, which I would capitalize, since it would be meaningless to seek a conception of a false self.

    Also, if I am reading right, it seems that you somehow deem the mind as your enemy, rather than seeing your own thoughts, imaginations, and wrong perceptions as the enemy. You assume, I suppose that these are natural in the mind. They are not. i won;t take the time now to explain but what is natural in the Mind is unconditional thinking. When we take up ego we took up conditional thinking as a way of perceiving. The truth is that when we took up ego we made ourselves the enemy of our mind. This needs correction. How can we be the enemy of our mind and find peace and be one with our mind. To embrace ego is to embrace conflict in our mind.

    This is to say that the mind is not a barrier to meditation. It is the thoughts we instigated and put into our head/heart that produces the barrier to our oneness with the mind. These thoughts are the barrier. You are told perhaps to still your mind. Technically this is true. But it is better that we recognize that it is still our own “thoughts” that are only occurring in the mind. The mind itself is not the problem. We are the problem because of ideas and a ways of false perceptions we put into our head/heart, those that come because we choose to perceive ourselves in our illusions. This distinction that the mind is your friend, and that it is your thoughts that are your enemy needs to be made if you are to perceive the mind as it really is. Otherwise you perceive the disaster it came to be to believe that is the reality of the mind. The disaster however is an illusion because it is caused by our belief in the need for illusions. Cause and effect. The fix is to change that belief. What is necessary is that we look past the disaster and not only deny the reality of the disaster as an effect and all that caused it, but to see fix our sights on the other shore. The other shore is what the true Nature of the Mind is. Nothing else is real in you to be called you.

  • RiddlewindRiddlewind oregon usa Explorer

    pegembara

    What is consciousness and who is the doer?

    We can be conscious of our body and our senses and aware of our surroundings. However, in actual context of the subject of “What am I”, and the question of which self do I perceive as the “I am” I am going to concern the subject to conscious choice.

    If I choose to think of myself as to picture the self as a body in the world, this being egos way, then, how am I the doer, I am merely following where ego takes me. If I follow in the idea ego, and that being nothing real then I am only a witness following an illusory choice. If I become greedy and hateful and resentful and desire what ego desires and needs to gratify the cravings of ego, then, I am but a servant doing my masters bidding. I am not myself nor am I in my right mind; I am living in my ego-illusion seeking to gratify needs and desires that are not real. Suffering from neediness and emotions and fears and guilt that has no real cause. If I follow in ego I can never accept and love myself because that self is an illusion and nothing real. All my efforts are in vain and meaningless. I have nothing because I have not Love. I do not live in reality but in some private world I made for myself. What is it but confusion and the impossible burden to justify myself to Love? All my trying is for naught and nothing. Nothing I have or do or any ability can bring me anything but an illusion of something to love.

    But if I consciously choose instead to return to my true Mind then there is freedom from by burden and my suffering because the Mind has accomplished all things for me. The Love I sought I freely receive. I need do nothing. The Mind that is Love has fulfilled itself. All I had to do was get out of the way and undo my wrong perception of myself. In loving Love I love myself, in abiding in Love I abide in the mindfulness of the Mind.

    If anyone would love themselves, do not try, because all trying will utterly fail.

  • pegembarapegembara Veteran
    edited September 2016

    @Riddlewind

    Is the Mind of the world or not? The world in this case include sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch and mental objects eg. thoughts, emotions such as love or hate.

    All phenomena that arise and passes are conditioned. The unconditioned isn't any of those. It isn't the 'Mind' either. Rather it is an object, not subject.

  • SpinyNormanSpinyNorman It's still all old bollocks Veteran

    @Riddlewind said:

    @SpinyNorman said:

    You mention the "Mind" a lot, could you give a brief description of what it actually is?

    And why "Mind" rather than"mind"?

    >
    I capitalize Mind as I would capitalize it to make the distinction between a false self and our true Self, or the perception of Mind/Being verses our ego perception of what we are. I capitalize Love because Love is the nature of Mind/Being/Self. There is love as an action. But, and forgive me, there is Love as a Spirit we receive from the Mind because Mind is the Source of Love. I capitalize Mind to make the distinction between what Mind is and the thoughts that occur in our head. The problem is that we assume that the collection of our thoughts and emotions and ideas is what defines what the mind is, and therefor somehow defines what we are. You cannot separate the way you perceive yourself form the way you perceive the mind. Defining ourselves and what the mind is relegates us to the belief that we can define what the mind is with our thoughts, as in our beliefs and opinions. This is simply not true. These only reflect where our head and thinking is at, and perceiving this as Mind or even mind can produce a false perception of what you are. If we understand that our thoughts do not exist as anything real –after all it is just a thought, and if we consider that these thoughts are subject to whims and fancies of our vain imaginations, even that they are insane thoughts, of which all ego thoughts are, then, we cannot define what the mind is by them. Of course in the mind is where thoughts occur, but we must acknowledge that those thoughts belong to us, and did not spontaneously erupt from the mind itself. There is only one Thought the Mind itself has, and that is unconditional Love. There is more to say, but in the interest of brevity, and maybe i said too much, I would leave you with this idea: The Mind says, “Your thoughts are not My thoughts, nor is your way My Way”.

    Love to you

    So in your view Mind is a sort of true self lying beneath transient thoughts and emotions?

  • RiddlewindRiddlewind oregon usa Explorer

    @pegembara said:
    @Riddlewind

    Is the Mind of the world or not? The world in this case include sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch and mental objects eg. thoughts, emotions such as love or hate.

    All phenomena that arise and passes are conditioned. The unconditioned isn't any of those. It isn't the 'Mind' either. Rather it is an object, not subject.

    >

    @pegembara You bring up an important point that does need clarification and that requires me to find some way to address it to provide that clarification. You put it in ways as to object and subject that I am not sure I can answer directly and coherently. To me the points you bring up or concepts don’t coincide with mine as far as I can tell. My ignorance I suppose.

    @pegembara You said in an earlier post
    >
    “Talking about it turns it into another object. There cannot be an ultimate subject/self standing all alone. Big Self implies there is a small self - they coarise dependently.
    <
    Let me ask. If the ego self, which is the way we have thought to perceive ourselves, i.e, as in picturing yourself as body in the world, is an illusion, and does to exist, then, there is no small self at all implied. I can only imply that there must be a true Self, by also implying that if ego was the lie, then, what is the truth?

    The only way to get that answer is to begin to understand the goal of ego and ego perception and why it fails. I said from the beginning that the goal of ego is to perceive what we are so we can accept and love ourselves. If ego is no real self and no real love, and ego is conditional thinking that fails, then, where does real Love come from? If conditional thinking cannot bring about Love then Love must be unconditional. Those are the only choices of what Love is.

    Otherwise Love is a complete mystery. Does anyone know what Love is. And yet if it come to our mind it must also be of our mind. If we actually experience the phenomena of Love unconditionally, rather than with conditional contrivances, can we not call it the truth of the mind since all my thinking could produce is a lie? I did nothing but seek to remove what I knew was false. What shall we call that mind that gave us unconditional Love but our true Self, since it is the truth of Love? That Self was always there.

    The idea of Mind/Being/Self are terms only to represent something we cannot really know in terms of actual knowledge. Only in experience do we fully know. But we can know what not to do and think.

    @pegembara said:

    Is the Mind of the world or not? The world in this case include sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch and mental objects eg. thoughts, emotions such as love or hate.

    All phenomena that arise and passes are conditioned. The unconditioned isn't any of those. It isn't the 'Mind' either. Rather it is an object, not subject.

    >

    Sounds logical of the physical being, but if you understand what I said there is no condition for a phenomena of unconditional Love. it just is. It also defies logic that if you try, you will fail; but if you stop trying, you succeed, and yet that is where the truth is and so our logic is flawed.

    No, the “Mind’ is not of the world. You suggest that thoughts and emotions such as love and hate are conditioned, and apparently must somehow be worldly. These are internal, although they may be affected by what is going on in the world. Essentially they are an internal choice. Thoughts and emotions have their cause and effect in the choice we make in the way we choose to think. If we choose ego we choose to think insanely. If we choose ego we choose to need ego and what ego needs and are subject to every insane illusion ego craves to gratify.

    @pegembara I am not sure what else I can say.

  • @Riddlewind

    The difference between our view is that you posit an ultimate self or Atman that is of pure love. The Buddha rejected that there can ever be anything permanent and unchanging the except Nibbana which is actually not a thing. Nibbana too is not self. The Enlightened ones natural mode of expression are metta, karuna, mudita and upekka ie. love, compassion, sympathetic joy, equanimity.

    The world is within our 6 senses which in a sense creates our world. My world is not the same as yours. Can we at least agree that what we point to is not what we are? They are to be regarded as not I, me, mine or myself.

    With metta

    SpinyNormanlobster
  • RiddlewindRiddlewind oregon usa Explorer

    @SpinyNorman said:
    >
    So in your view Mind is a sort of true self lying beneath transient thoughts and emotions?
    >

    This is correct. It is the Mind we do not yet perceive or let act upon us because we choose to perceive ourselves and our mind as something else. By perceiving the mind as ego and acting in ego we illicit a cause and effect that does not allow us to hear or perceive the mind as it really is. We listen to the clanging and the chatter of ego and think it is our mind acting and doing, and cannot hear the Thought of the Mind, which is the Thought of unconditional thinking.

    There is a already convention of an idea we all perhaps use in describing the workings of the mind. That convention is of the idea that the heart is our emotional self where we love or hate or suffers pain and experience life. This is essentially where we live, and where we perceive our existence. That convention also accepts that the heart can be irrational, while the mind is rational.

    For the most part I agree with this convention for an explanation of what is occurring in the mind. The term “heart” is used to express something of what your feel and think. But the heart has no physicality in the mind. The term “Mind” is to express something also, not only as the Source for Love but also as the Rational Mind. The heart can have illusions and is why the heart can be irrational. The ‘Mind’, having no conditional thought/images/pictures/idols has no illusions of what you are, because it has no illusion of what it is.In this way the Mind knows itself even if we do not.

    Both ‘heart’ and ‘Mind’ represent two functions in the mind and together form the overall mind. Remember that this just expression and way being able to see. The heart/mind and the Rational Mind must agree if we are to one as one mind. Otherwise our mind is divided and we are at war with our Mind, there is chaos and conflict. When the Mind and heart/mind do agree there is one mind, and there is peace, we are then returned to our true state made whole and complete.

    The situation is that our heart thoughts/imaginings/beliefs/love can change and do change. The heart is where we live and think our thoughts and experience the highs and lows of life and emotions. Also the heart is where we think to perceive and where all illusion and self-delusion is generated. The Rational Mind of unconditional Love cannot change. By its nature an “unconditional” thought cannot change. Only conditional thinking can change, and that occurs in our heart. So, if the mind is to be of one mind, and the Rational Mind is what is it is and cannot change then any change must be made in our heart. That necessary change is undo all our conditional thinking which is judgmental thinking. This makes the heart then also rational because the heart has conformed to the Rational Mind. The conflict is ended along with the confusion of what the mind is and what you are. Love is come to satisfy the heart that was needy. The problem is that in the idea of ego we thought we new better and chose to generate love for ourselves to satisfy the mind. None of it is real.

    We can look at it this way. When we choose to believe in our heart that Love was conditional, we quite literally chose to disbelieve in our Mind and disassociated ourselves from the Rational Mind because we choose to identify/associate ourselves with the idea of ego instead. But if we identify/associate ourselves with the Higher Mind as opposed to the thoughts in our heart, we re-associate ourselves with the Rational Mind and what the mind really is. At the point of our heart and Rational Mind become as one mind and where we live in our heart becomes calm as the Mind is calm. The destination is reached; the cause for conflict and confusion has ended.

    You may notice that both the Rational Mind and the heart are actually only concerned with Love and what Love is, and both are to satisfy the mind. What I am saying also is that only the Mind can satisfy itself. In all our efforts we cannot do it. Whichever way of Love we choose in our heart is the cause and effect we experience. Because ego is insane and depends upon vain imaginations so our thoughts/needs/experiences follow in cause and effect. The Rational Mind of unconditional Love, is its own Cause, unchangeable and unaffected by what we think, experience, desire, or any senses of the body or the world. In a way it is to leave the world.

    How you think to perceive yourself has great consequences. What is delusion but a consequence of self-perception? Whatever flatters you deny it as real, because it is to delude yourself. Flattery is the experience of a conditional idea of loving yourself. There is no such thing as conditional love form yourself or anyone.

    Love to you

  • RiddlewindRiddlewind oregon usa Explorer

    @Pegembara said:

    >
    The Enlightened ones natural mode of expression are metta, karuna, mudita and upekka ie. love, compassion, sympathetic joy, equanimity
    <

    @Pegembara I suggest then that you do have a higher Mind otherwise these could not be natural nor could you accomplish them. And I suggest that in that Mind and only because of that Mind you can overcome the desire for the gratification and cravings of sensual and ego pleasures that are unnatural and are those that oppose what Love is. I suggest that if greed, the neediness to satisfy the mind with vanities and flattery, hate, cruelty, and the lack of compassion were natural then you could not undo them to allow “love, compassion, sympathetic joy, equanimity”. But because the Mind is really those, so you can.

    Love to you my friend

  • RiddlewindRiddlewind oregon usa Explorer

    @ Pegembara

    The Mind is our Mind. The idea of having a Higher Mind is as much of an humble attitude as it is the understanding that the Mind is higher than myself and my thoughts and way of thinking. If my thoughts oppose the Mind then I an wrong and not in my right Mind.

    I do not know how to love, or have compassion, or have sympathetic joy, or equanimity, but my Mind does. We can and should desire them, but no matter how much I do desire it I cannot do it, only the Mind can do it. It is to get ourselves out of the way and these come naturally. I suggest that those that can are in their right Mind.

    pegembara
  • SpinyNormanSpinyNorman It's still all old bollocks Veteran
    edited September 2016

    I used to do a lot of hill-walking/climbing, scrabbling up steep inclines to get to the top, only to realise that there are higher peaks beyond. Always.
    So don't get too attached to a particular view, keep moving up.

    personlobster
  • pegembarapegembara Veteran
    edited September 2016

    The Great Way is not difficult
    for those who have no preferences.
    When love and hate are both absent
    everything becomes clear and undisguised.
    Make the smallest distinction, however,
    and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.

    If you wish to see the truth
    then hold no opinions for or against anything.
    To set up what you like against what you dislike
    is the disease of the mind.

    Live neither in the entanglements of outer things,
    nor in inner feelings of emptiness.
    Be serene in the oneness of things and such
    erroneous views will disappear by themselves

    When no discriminating thoughts arise,
    the old mind ceases to exist.
    When thought objects vanish,
    the thinking-subject vanishes:
    As when the mind vanishes, objects vanish.

    Things are objects because of the subject (mind):
    the mind (subject) is such because of things (object).
    Understand the relativity of these two
    and the basic reality: the unity of emptiness.
    In this Emptiness the two are indistinguishable
    and each contains in itself the whole world.

    http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/buddhism/third_patriarch_zen.html

    person
  • KeromeKerome Did I fall in the forest? Europe Veteran

    I love hsin hsin ming, the Inscription on Faith in Mind :)

    Although I do not think what @Riddlewind is describing is the mind. After all does it think? The dictionary says the mind is what thinks, and without thoughts, but what is left?

  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Somewhere in the UK, Central-Southern.... Moderator

    It depends. When we speak of mind, we speak of Self. When we speak of Mind, we speak of Not-Self.

  • SpinyNormanSpinyNorman It's still all old bollocks Veteran

    @Kerome said:
    I love hsin hsin ming, the Inscription on Faith in Mind :)

    Although I do not think what @Riddlewind is describing is the mind. After all does it think? The dictionary says the mind is what thinks, and without thoughts, but what is left?

    We don't need to be thinking for awareness to be present. I usually think of the mind as the space where thoughts arise, but there are different ways of looking at it.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.