Guest guest Posted July 14, 1999 Report Share Posted July 14, 1999 I've been wondering where consciousness is in relation to the contents of the mind. Near as I can tell it seems to be kind of "shining" in to the mind from outside much like light is outside a mirror but seems to form objects "in" or "on" the mirror's surface. It seems the various images reflected in the mind are mistaken to be a "self" but the witness of the images has never actually been "inside" the mind at all. By virtue of disidentifying with the images in the mind, the witness consciousness seems to come into its own domain which does not seem to be physically bounded. I wonder if the mind actually is like a mirror which can only reflect a small fraction of what is hitting it so the images are not entirely false but not entirely true either. What is hitting the mirror of the mind is also what is aware of the reflection and the mistaken identity happens when awareness confuses itself with its own distorted reflection? I like this analogy very much of looking directly into a mirror which does NOT reflect my face at all. This mirror reflects a universe in vivid detail but I have never been in that picture. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 1999 Report Share Posted July 14, 1999 > > One of the problem is define what is mind? A correct definition is > feasible if only if we can know what is consciousness. Consciousness is > responsible for finding such problems and it also wonders and tries find > the distinction between itself and mind! It asks lots of questions and > only questions! hmm... but nothing can reveal consciousness because consciousness reveals everything else, right? the difference between consciousness and mind is similar maybe to the difference between Brahman and Maya? I like the Kashmir Shaivism idea that mind/matter isn't just caused by illusion but a real movement (ie. spanda, Shakti) of the Absolute. The equivalent in our example might be to say mind is formed out of consciousness for the purpose of reflecting images like the universe inside itself. I saw an article on Kashmir Shaivism on the net recently written by a Ram Chandran. Was that you Ram? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 1999 Report Share Posted July 14, 1999 Your analogy is a good one. Let me try another analogy - watching a movie and get fully immersed with it. Watching a ball game in the TV is another example. The movie and the TV also reflect life in greater details. Some assume that the movie is real and get emotionally attached to the hero, heroin etc. The ball games are also treated real and some start talking to the players narrating their reactions. Sankara was quite correct when he said “illusion is neither real not nonreal!” One of the problem is define what is mind? A correct definition is feasible if only if we can know what is consciousness. Consciousness is responsible for finding such problems and it also wonders and tries find the distinction between itself and mind! It asks lots of questions and only questions! >"a c" <ac > >I like this analogy very much of looking directly >into a mirror which does NOT reflect my face at >all. This mirror reflects a universe in vivid >detail but I have never been in that picture. >What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 1999 Report Share Posted July 14, 1999 > hmm... but nothing can reveal consciousness > because consciousness reveals everything else, > right? the difference between consciousness and > mind is similar maybe to the difference between > Brahman and Maya? I like the Kashmir Shaivism > idea that mind/matter isn't just caused by > illusion but a real movement (ie. spanda, Shakti) > of the Absolute. The Absolute... in movement? This idea is entirely foreign to me. Does the Absolute move? Movement implies time, and time is entirely of thought. Movement is also a quality, and Nirguna Brahman is free of the gunas, free of qualities. I just cannot see the Kashmir Shaivism point of view (not to imply that because of that it may not be a true one). Advaita Vedanta does not say that mind/matter is just caused by illusion either. It says nothing of the sort. Mind/matter is a veil hiding the Absolute, but the veil must of necessity be "part of" the Absolute as well, or there is duality. Thus, mind and matter are holy in the Vedantic sense, and not "bad" in any way. It's when we think that mind/matter *is* absolute reality that we are blinded, that avidya blocks knowledge of truth, that we see only a tiny portion of the "whole picture." Hari OM, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.