What is the inner-self?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

so... would you say that the perceiver exists seperately from the perception?

metta,

~v

No because, without the perceiver, there is definitely no perception. Without a person, there is no personal view.

v/r

Q

[_Z_]

Hi vaj and quohom,



There is a great difference between perception and 'gnosis' through oneness. The perception is looking on to a thing, a secondary view if you will, whereas becoming one or joining the mind with a given thing is an innermost yoga that bypasses the idea of the thing and joins directly with the inner state of a thing.



Or something like that - just my view of it

Z

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by _Z_

Hi vaj and quohom,



There is a great difference between perception and 'gnosis' through oneness. The perception is looking on to a thing, a secondary view if you will, whereas becoming one or joining the mind with a given thing is an innermost yoga that bypasses the idea of the thing and joins directly with the inner state of a thing.



Or something like that - just my view of it

Z

Namaste Z,

by what agent is the mind joined to an object?

metta,

~v

[_Z_]

Nanaste vaj



By what agent is the mind joined to an object?



No agent whatsoever! The self is both individualised and universal – so far as I see it. Thus it is linked to all things including infinity, which is also linked to all things and across time. The self is the ‘it’ factor, that sees hears and feels etc. it is also the ‘it’ that has mind thence thinks utilising the brain as a tool. Yoga is the act of union between things [as I see it], it is the ‘joining’ or oneness between one ‘it’ and another ‘it’ – is there not oneness as well as multiplicity? Or do you have a dualistic view.



I don’t quite understand why you question what for me is the very essence of Hindu and Buddhist philosophy? - well I don’t know if it is, but certainly central to druidic philosophy - why would the self need an ‘agent’ to move between things – the essential nature of spirit is freedom [in druidic philosophy] – they are intrinsically linked. The khu’s [primary or primordial spirits] arise out of the void; the two are the same as are all things [same applies to quantum mechanics], there is no separateness between things only in their apparency!


Z

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by _Z_

Nanaste vaj



By what agent is the mind joined to an object?



No agent whatsoever! The self is both individualised and universal – so far as I see it. Thus it is linked to all things including infinity, which is also linked to all things and across time. The self is the ‘it’ factor, that sees hears and feels etc. it is also the ‘it’ that has mind thence thinks utilising the brain as a tool. Yoga is the act of union between things [as I see it], it is the ‘joining’ or oneness between one ‘it’ and another ‘it’ – is there not oneness as well as multiplicity? Or do you have a dualistic view.



I don’t quite understand why you question what for me is the very essence of Hindu and Buddhist philosophy? - well I don’t know if it is, but certainly central to druidic philosophy - why would the self need an ‘agent’ to move between things – the essential nature of spirit is freedom [in druidic philosophy] – they are intrinsically linked. The khu’s [primary or primordial spirits] arise out of the void; the two are the same as are all things [same applies to quantum mechanics], there is no separateness between things only in their apparency!


Z

Buddhism is all about questioning

nevertheless... so, in your view, the mind just "knows" and there is nothing required for it to do so?

there is no psychological mechanism for acquiring understanding?

as an aside, i ascribe to neither dualistic or monistic views of reality, for what it is worth.

metta,

~v

[_Z_]

Hi vaj,

Nevertheless... so, in your view, the mind just "knows" and there is nothing required for it to do so?

absolutely! that is exactly 'it'.

I would say that it doesn’t reach ‘knowing’ perhaps not even ‘gnosis’ [as in inner knowing], the mind as ‘utilised by the individual’ is secondary to the universal ‘it’/mind. This mind then is within everything, so I am seeing it as like we know our limbs, the mind ‘knows’ everything in existence then via infinity, knows all things throughout time and perhaps eternity [if it exists].

Psychology is way down the line of the subtle to the gross as I see it. perhaps we are more talking in terms of 'un-thinking' y'know. [?]

Infinity is the paper upon which all things are drawn, existence is the drawing the self is the artist and the mind is the universally dextrous ‘it’ that moves throughout the big picture.



Huh, I started that one hoping that a nice little one-liner would arise in my mind, but I am tired and somewhat exhausted, so I hope it helped in some way.

as an aside, i ascribe to neither dualistic or monistic views of reality, for what it is worth.

Always worth keeping the doors open! There’s a nice little discussion on these lines going on in comparative studies – ‘form and formlessness’.



respect and thanx for replies!

Z

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Z,


so, it seems as if you view mind as an independent entity, is that correct?

i.e. that it does not arise based on causes and conditions, rather, it exists in some substantial manner in an eternal sense.

metta,

~v

[_Z_]

Namaste vaj

So, it seems as if you view mind as an independent entity

Or perhaps that mind [or self, the ‘it’] is the un-independent and that all else are overlaid upon it. This is then a mirror of the universal mind of which our minds are indistinguishable like a vortex in an ocean [with the will [it] or inner most self and prime mover at the centre]- then like how physical existence is overlaid upon infinity, remembering that this is a description that separates but not the meaning, - the quantum is not absolutely separate from infinity as quarks appear from nothing.



The brain and human form are tools. Like an organic robot, that has its own programs yet may be directed. Whilst we are occupying it the two are indistinguishable i.e. the self/spirit and its form, this – if I may – is because the spirit is pan-transformable and ‘becomes one’ with its form. I would presume that there is a universal principle involved here: ‘like attracts like’ then ‘the act becomes real’ add these together and it supplies us with a glimpse of the mechanism by which incarnations move and rotate [interact] – that we are attracted to a form thence become that form. Returning to the level of mind – the spirit can become one with other things as is does to have arrived here in the first place. This for me is how e.g. visualisation works [and various magics] – we form an image in the mind, and if it correlates to a form in reality, then this simplest of acts is a connection where a oneness is formed, thence we can know that thing and communicate with it –most animals have this ability on a simple level – this is how your dog knows when you are on your way home!



Sorry but I don’t know how to put the above into the language of psychology.



Respect



Z

[Vajradhara]

hmm...


i think my dog knows due to his vastly superior sense of smell...

which may or may not be a "good" thing, depending on what one gets to smell!

so.. if the mind is "un-independent" that means that it is dependent, yes?

if that is so, upon what is the mind dependent?

metta,

~v

[_Z_]

vaj

I think my dog knows due to his vastly superior sense of smell...

No way – I have tested it to the limit! If you look for it you will see it, I think of the spirit between things as a reality [just because it is not made of energy, that doesn’t mean something is not real imho], just like what we are as spirits is too.

so.. if the mind is "un-independent" that means that it is dependent, yes?

Interesting… what upon itself do you mean? I would think it is simply a free agent – well spirit is anyway, yet is mind of spirit or vice versa? Or it’s simply ways of looking at the same thing? If we can say they are the same, then I would see it thus: ‘there is that which is bound and there is that which is not’! infinity is not, the quantum universe is.

Now I wonder if infinity and spirit are indeed the same thing?

This is like yoga – joining into one.



Metta.

Z

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Z,

Originally Posted by _Z_

vaj




No way – I have tested it to the limit! If you look for it you will see it, I think of the spirit between things as a reality [just because it is not made of energy, that doesn’t mean something is not real imho], just like what we are as spirits is too.

you've tested it, Z?

you have some evidence that you can present which supports your conclusions? i would be quite interested to read your study and it's evidence.

what is a "spirit" and how is that related to sentient beings?

how can a being evidence that they have a "spirit" or, as some may say, a "soul"?

Interesting… what upon itself do you mean?

well... you indicated that you thought that mind was "un-independent" to which i interpet that to mean, dependent. i'm trying to clarify if i'm understanding you correctly here

I would think it is simply a free agent – well spirit is anyway, yet is mind of spirit or vice versa? Or it’s simply ways of looking at the same thing? If we can say they are the same, then I would see it thus: ‘there is that which is bound and there is that which is not’! infinity is not, the quantum universe is.

i don't suppose that you have some evidence to support your conclusions concerning Quantum Mechanics, do you? moreover, i suspect that this would be dependent upon which view of QM which we hold, the Many Worlds or Copenhagen view... for my own part, i used to be a very strong Copenhagen proponent. my view has changed and it now seems that the Many Worlds view is a more complete description of what is experienced.

in particular, i disagree with the Copenhagen view concerning when the waveform collapses, since it can collapse without the presence of an observing consciousness. though, i do find the Schrodingers Cat thought experiment to be quite intriguing.

metta,

~v

[Zazen]

wheres your evidence of reincarnation, astral projection or bodhisattvas and buddhist dietys for that matter?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Zazen,

Originally Posted by Zazen

wheres your evidence of reincarnation, astral projection or bodhisattvas and buddhist dietys for that matter?

why would i need any of that, especially as Buddhism doesn't teach reincarnation "astral projection"? what would be projected? conditoned mental states dependent upon the aggregates?

Bodhisattvas? well.. there's Jesus though one is free to accept his existence or not.

Buddhist deities?

if one cannot accept those teachings of Buddha, then one does not have to.

recall the teaching to the Kalamaas, Zazen, we are told to test the teachings like a goldsmith tests gold to find it's impurities. only once we have confirmed it for ourselves are we supposed to adhere to it and live up to it.

of course, one is also then counciled to consider, carefully, the teachings from spiritually mature members of the Sangha.

metta,

~v

[Zazen]

for one jesus isnt a bodhisattva unless thats how YOU wish view him, the christians i can assure you do not consider jesus to be a bodhisattva or a prophet as the muslims do, and im well aware of what a bodhisattva is, but of course you can hold any oppinion u want, you obviously do a good job of stateing your oppinions as fact all over this forum.

and buddhist do believe in reincarnation, is that or is that not the dalai lamas whole deal. and regardless of him, buddhist do believe in reincarnation as i could easily quote you on this site as adhering to the belief of reincarnation. not to mention if i cared i could easily find many buddhist sutras to back up my claim

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara
so... would you say that the perceiver exists seperately from the perception?

metta,

~v

Quahom1

No because, without the perceiver, there is definitely no perception. Without a person, there is no personal view.

v/r

Q

You never came back Vaj...