Guest guest Posted February 27, 2003 Report Share Posted February 27, 2003 Hello All, Story Time: Alerted by a noise in the cowshed early in the morning my uncle got up to see what was the matter. There he found a neighbour milking a cow. Was the man hungry? No, you see it was May (day)morning and it was believed that whoever had the milk of the cow first on that day would have the 'good' of it for the rest of the year. The 'good' of it means its vital force, its virtue or that subtle essence which feeds you along with the gross product. It's magical thinking which works in an analogical sort of way. Milk is healthy in that it produces health in man so the idea is that as well as everything else in milk there is this 'healthy' as well. The foregoing story relates to Chandogya Upanisad VI.v.1. "Food when eaten becomes divided in three way. Of it, that which is the grossest ingredient, that turns into faeces. That which is the medium constituent becomes flesh. That which is the subtlest becomes mind." This sort of thinking could be called mythic. It is the language of the dream or primary process in which logic has not yet arrived. To 'not' or 'but' something in a dream it has to be presented and then qualified by action on it. The waking state has secondary process and logic as a matter of course but poetry dips in and out via symbols and myths between the two. I came across recently the account of the dream of a dying man in which the subtlest healing and self-knowledge came through the manipulation of symbols. Sankara moves between Mythos and Logos and at times it seems that his analogies of superimposition and substantial identity are more than mere analogies of the really real. Of course in Advaita the analogy is non-dual with the reality which is its focus. This is not the case in systems where analogy plays a large part and in which the Absolute is transcendentally other. Ciao and Blessings,Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2003 Report Share Posted March 2, 2003 Hello Michael, May be I am not getting your frequency when you say: ______________ ""Food when eaten becomes divided in three ways. Of it, that which is the grossest ingredient, that turns into faeces. That which is the medium constituent becomes flesh. That which is the subtlest becomes mind." "This sort of thinking could be called mythic. It is the language of the dream or primary process in which logic has not yet arrived." __________________ Why, Sir? Is it not true that the mind results from breath and the energy for the latter comes from food? Yes. You are very right about Sankara's involvement with symbols (mythos and logos). I believe we must delve into Saundaryalahari (under very expert guidance of course)to marvel at the philosophical, poetic and symbolistic depths of Sankara. He is just oceanic! Regards. Madathil Nair ______________________ advaitin, "svahauk <ombhurbhuva@h...>" < Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2003 Report Share Posted March 3, 2003 Madathil Nair wrote: #16085Hello Michael, May be I am not getting your frequency when you say: ______________ ""Food when eaten becomes divided in three ways. Of it, that which is the grossest ingredient, that turns into faeces. That which is the medium constituent becomes flesh. That which is the subtlest becomes mind." "This sort of thinking could be called mythic. It is the language of the dream or primary process in which logic has not yet arrived." __________________ Why, Sir? Is it not true that the mind results from breath and the energy for the latter comes from food? Yes. You are very right about Sankara's involvement with symbols (mythos and logos). I believe we must delve into Saundaryalahari (under very expert guidance of course)to marvel at the philosophical, poetic and symbolistic depths of Sankara. He is just oceanic! ********************************************************************************\ ***** Hello Madathil, Mythic as I wrote might well be replaced with the word 'magical'. In using either word I do not make any judgment on the conformity to reality of the type of thinking that is behind this explanation. About Mind: Mind became identified with breath perhaps because breath became suspended when the action of the mind was abated in states of mystic ecstasy. When the mind is perturbed by emotion so too is the breath. Working from the physiological to the psychic hatha yogis attempted to create the same state of mind by abating the breath through pranayama. The Eastern Orthodox Christian monks used breath to establish the Prayer of the Heart. "Thus breathing is the natural way to the heart. And so, collect your mind and conduct it by way of your breathing by which air passes to the heart and, together with the inhaled air, force it to descend into the heart and stay there. And train it not to come out of there quickly; for at this inner enclosure, restraint is very wearisome, but when it becomes accustomed to it, then on the contrary it does not like whirling without, because it is therefore filled with joy and happiness... (Bishop Ignatius Brianchinov) Though the breath may be an excellent feedback mechanism for the mind still the question remains - Is there such a thing as the mind at all? I don't mean that in the ultimate sense of what is really real. In the classical way mind is merely the notional vehicle for ego sense. In the modern sense (in so far as I understand it) mind is the quality of the total interaction of information both under and beyond the skin. Does that mean that we are backing ourselves into a quality of the quality etc. situation? No, because any state is immediately self-luminous. Leaving that to one side and staying with the concept of mind can we say that any system that is coherent can have a mind and that mind is not necessarily conscious? Could a computer have a mind and not be conscious? One for the systems folks, best wishes, Michael. _______________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2003 Report Share Posted March 4, 2003 Hello Michael. The Bishop really knew what he was talking about! It is the experience of any meditator provided, of course, he has no fear of death due to self-suffocation! About mind, I would like to think as follows: Mind is a Frankenstein created by us. It does not really exist on enquiry. We are in fact inventing it in order to explain the error due to which ignorance (duality) results. Mind can therefore be considered synonymous with advaitic error. Mind as the operating factor behind the 'awarer' of objects is necessary only as long as individual object appreciations are differentiated. It pops up automatically like space and time. When we get down to Consciousness, the common denominator of all individual object experiences, the mind (space and time too) melts off like it had never been there. So, where is the question of mind being conscious? Consciousness shines both the bogey of the mind and its very falsity. A computer can have a mind if consciousness can permit that liberty, but, mind you, you are loaning it out to the computer! Because, the computer and everything else including the system folks shine after you, Michael! Regards. Madathil Nair _____________________________ advaitin, "michael Reidy" <ombhurbhuva@h...> quoted: "Thus breathing is the natural way to the heart. And so, collect > your mind and conduct it by way of your breathing by which air passes to the > heart and, together with the inhaled air, force it to descend into the heart > and stay there. And train it not to come out of there quickly; for at this > inner enclosure, restraint is very wearisome, but when it becomes accustomed > to it, then on the contrary it does not like whirling without, because it is > therefore filled with joy and happiness... (Bishop Ignatius Brianchinov). ....................................... > > the question remains - Is there such a thing as the mind at all? .......... In the classical > way mind is merely the notional vehicle for ego sense. In the modern sense > (in so far as I understand it) mind is the quality of the total interaction > of information both under and beyond the skin. .......................... > Leaving that to one side and staying with the concept of mind can we say > that any system that is coherent can have a mind and that mind is not > necessarily conscious? Could a computer have a mind and not be conscious? > One for the systems folks. 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.