I am my Subconscious Mind [not a non-doer]

September 3, 2001

Jan,

This is very helpful post, though I take it in exactly the opposite

direction that you do. Your comments are serendipitous, since they enable me

to economically draw the difference between San and my remarks in recent

emails.

> A viewpoint from a different perspective.

>

> I have not seen the subconscious mind mentioned in any spiritual group or

> writings.

Actually, Jung bases his whole theory of spirituality on the subconscious,

though he calls it the unconscious to distinguish his view from Freud's.

> Yet we are our subconscious minds! Our conscious mind is only an

> afterthought.

Bernard Baars has developed an interesting and plausible view of the

conscious mind as a workspace that allows subconscious modules to

communicate with one another so we can respond effectively to our present

situation. I believe there are some serious limitations to his theory, but

it also explains a great deal. In any case, we are certainly more than our

subconscious, but I agree that most of what goes on in our " minds " takes

place subconsciously.

Baars, Bernard J. (1988), A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press).

> [Animals function very well without a conscious mind].

If you mean that animals are just unconscious robots, this seems implausible

on its face. And at least some animals function in ways that imply Baars'

conscious workspace.

> The

> conscious mind has no direct access to the vast resources of our

> subconscious minds. Most decisions are already made by our subconscious

> minds thus the mistaken concept of non-doer ship.

Here is the precise point where San and I part company. Both San and I agree

that doership is an illusion, but we draw different conclusions. The common

illusion is that I consciously do things, that I freely decide to do one

thing rather than another. Jan's insight into the subconscious says that

this is an illusion. The conscious mind is not making the decisions; it only

becomes aware of the decisions already made by the subconscious. I fully (?)

agree.

[snip]

> I think perhaps the main reason for having a conscious mind is not to

> rubber stamp the decisions made by the subconscious mind but to stay quiet

> and experience the Ultimate Reality !?

I have for several years been intrigued by this hypothesis but have found it

has always broken down in exploring the particulars. However, I have not

given up that there is some important truth lying in this direction.

> Thus in a person like Ramana the

> subconscious mind was the sole 'doer' for the body/mind to survive. Whereas

> the conscious mind had merged with the Greater Consciousness !? [To put it

> in the non-dual way, our conscious mind is part of the Greater

> Consciousness already. It just 'mistakenly' identifies with the

> subconscious mind it is inhabiting !?]

>

Here's where I part company with San Jan and most of the spiritual

tradition. We have two options once we discover that doership is an

illusion. We can hypothesize a Greater Consciousness that is " doing "

everything and get mired into all the conceptual incoherence of San's

writing, which he in disingenuous humility calls prattling. (I don't think

he believes that for a moment, but is forced to use the language because of

a priori commitments.) Or we can reduce our commitment to the particulars

of our ordinary experience and rest in our simple bodily presence. Since our

thinking is reduced, so is all the processing that distinguishes between

self and other. We " merge " with all of reality, not because we discover that

" we " are really Cosmic Consciousness, but because we have placed on idle the

cognitive functions that distinguish us from others. Many, perhaps all, of

the enlightenment experiences described in Realization posts are, in this

account, events where cognitive functioning has been reduced, allowing

unusual rushes of affect. This allows of degrees.

My perspective has the advantage of taking the obvious world seriously

without taking it too seriously, and being able to assimilate enlightenment

experiences within ordinary logic. As a corollary, it allows us to talk of

degrees of enlightenment, which seems to accord with experience, rather than

agree with San that you are either enlightened or you aren't, which smacks

of some a priori conviction. BTW, before San has a heart attack over my

referring to " experience " , I believe our differences are semantic. When he

says enlightenment is not an experience, I agree, in the sense that

enlightenment is not an ordinary experience. However, I use " experience " to

mean a conscious event, in which case we can experience enlightenment . . .

and do so in degrees.

Since what I just said is a radically different perspective from that

apparently held by Realization members, there is no way I can make it fully

understandable without considerably developing a context for my remarks.

That is what I'm currently working on. When I have something completed, I

will share more with you.

Gary

Gary Schouborg

Performance Consulting

Walnut Creek, CA

garyscho

Publications and professional services:

http://home.att.net/~garyscho

September 3, 2001

Hiya Jan,

Conscious mind, subconscious mind, unconscious mind, all nuances of the mind stuff, which is a mere conceptual instrument, needed for cognition and thus simultaneously manifested with the phenomena that it cognizes.

The cognizing mind and the cognized phenomena are interdependent and BOTH are manifested objects.

Both ignorance and enlightenment are states of the mind, and the mind is not an entity but a mere notion inferred by the memory of experience.

In deep sleep, Jan, where is the mind, conscious, subconscious, unconscious et al?

Monk protests: "But Master, yesterday you saidthat Mind is Buddha."Ma Tsu: "That was like offering yellow leaves to a childand telling him it is gold---just to stop his crying."Monk: "And what about when the child has stopped crying?"Ma Tsu: "Then I say, Not Mind, Not Buddha, Not things!"

On the other subject that you mention, Dr Benjamin Libet's experimental validation of the time lag has nothing to do with the subconscious mind's decisions.

It was for an "event" much prior to the subconscious mind coming into operation.

Yes the subconscious mind and the conscious mind form the "operative conditioning in the moment" which is the original gene-structure impacted by inputs from the external environment.

The non-volitional trigger-thought, the collapse of the wave function form the Infinite Quantum Field of wave functions (possibilities) has nothing to do with the subconscious mind's working, which in fact gets triggered of, by this "occurrence".

If you are interested I could point you to a more detailed study of Dr Libet's work, (quite technical)

You say "the main reason for having a conscious mind is not to rubber stamp the decisions made by the subconscious mind but to stay quiet and experience the Ultimate Reality !?"

Mind cannot be quietened.

No-Mind may occur.

And Ultimate Reality cannot be experienced.

Neither in degrees, and neither as a whole.

For it to "experienceable", it has to be objectified.

And that is not possible.

We cannot apprehend Ultimate Reality because we have never been other than it.We cannot integrate with Ultimate Reality because we are never disintegrated from it.

In relative terms we can never understand what Ultimate Reality is.The Whole-Mind cannot be known by the split-mind relativity.

Then what is the nature of "experiences", both the mundane ones as well as the profound spiritual ones, the latter, which, one has promptly labeled as experiences of enlightenment" and is now ready to defend them till kingdom come?

Just movements of Consciousness, through a conditioned body-mind complex, the existing conditioning in the moment, being precisely that is needed to produce the very "output" (experience that occurs) to an incoming input.

The whole process, as an "occurrence" in phenomenality.

And since phenomenality itself is a concept, anything that occurs within a conceptual construct, can only be conceptual.

Like the profound love we discover in our night-sleep-dream, very real, profoundly moving, while the dreaming is on.

Next morning, sipping a hot cup of tea........

It's like Water without losing it's nature, enjoying the beauty of waves(symbolizing the illusory phenomenality) thereon.

It is like drawing the figure of fish in the water.

There has been the fact of drawing a fish but nothing remains of either the fish nor the drawing.

Some two bit-ings

Cheers

Sandeep

-

Jan Sultan

sworkalpha

Monday, September 03, 2001 08:36 PM

I am my Subconscious Mind [not a non-doer]

A viewpoint from a different perspective.I have not seen the subconscious mind mentioned in any spiritual group or writings.Yet we are our subconscious minds! Our conscious mind is only an afterthought. [Animals function very well without a conscious mind]. The conscious mind has no direct access to the vast resources of our subconscious minds. Most decisions are already made by our subconscious minds thus the mistaken concept of non-doer ship. In fact scientists have recently discovered that the decisions already made by our subconscious minds appear 1/2 a second later in our conscious minds and are rightly regarded by our conscious minds as our own decisions.What we do, how we react in different circumstances depends on what is stored in our subconscious minds. Our subconscious minds not only store raw data but also sequences of script that could be played out in different circumstances. That is the learned survival mechanisms passed down in our genes from the time when life first appeared on earth.In a set of circumstances we can guess how an Italian, a German and an Englishman will react. [This is true all over the world with different tribes, sub-tribes and even families.] In India different tribes do different jobs. For example "Goldsmith" is a name of a tribe! Why are groups predictable? It is because of their similar genetic make-up and similar upbringing. Remember the subconscious mind is built on the foundations of genes + environment.I think perhaps the main reason for having a conscious mind is not to rubber stamp the decisions made by the subconscious mind but to stay quiet and experience the Ultimate Reality !? Thus in a person like Ramana the subconscious mind was the sole 'doer' for the body/mind to survive. Whereas the conscious mind had merged with the Greater Consciousness !? [To put it in the non-dual way, our conscious mind is part of the Greater Consciousness already. It just 'mistakenly' identifies with the subconscious mind it is inhabiting !?]______________________With Love,Cyber Dervish````````````````````````````````````````