Guest guest Posted May 22, 2006 Report Share Posted May 22, 2006 In a message dated 5/20/2006 10:51:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, stuartkfmn writes: > >L.E: This is a reminder that mind is a creation of brain, which is a > creation > >of the cellular community called the human organism. And that ego, > person, > >or self, is the creation or expression of mind. Each level has no > independent > >existence of its own and relies on the supporting levels for its > apparent > >existence. No brain, no mind, no ego, person, or self. In this > sense there is > >the question of who or what is in control, and who or what is the > reality of the > >situation Most of these discussions see the problem and solution > within the > >realm of mind, and ignore the " neural network " of brain in and by > which this > >all occurrs. If you start with: 'I am the representative of a > commnity of > >cells and am authorized to defend, protect and enhance the survival > of my > >community, you will have this discussion from a more practical and > realistic place, > >and understand the nature of the I am state as to its purpose and > existence. > > > >Larry Epston > > > > > > From where I sit the concept of the " brain enlightenment " and the > " spiritual enlightenment " don't contradict each other:-) > So I can agree with your story and still believe in the story that we > take our spiritual mind with us from life to life:-) > The truth is to be found where those two stories point. > I personally love a paradox:-) > The paradox being that they don't point at anything... and that is > somehow comforting to me... > > Stu > > L.E: Perhaps enlightenment can be seen as becoming aware of the levels > supporting one's own existence. The more levels you are aware of, the more > enlightened you are. For instance, ego can become aware of mind, and that is one > step of enlightment. Each level that the ego can integrate into its own sense > of self is further enlightenment. Those whose sense of self embraces the > whole of existence, the beyond, the absolute, are the most enlightened. Larry Epston www.epston.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2006 Report Share Posted May 22, 2006 In a message dated 5/21/2006 11:56:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time, tony_s_sandford writes: > What Nisargadatta (and Ramana) preferrred to talk about was that which is > primary and freedom: Self Nature as consciousness itself or BEING. They did > not denigrate other paths, but only felt that they were not the direct route. > The direct route is to locate and be that which you are in Truth (This is > defintiely the instrucction Nisargadatta was given by his Guru). > > So that is my two cents on the subject > > Christo > L.E: What do you think that Nisargadatta was thinking about for the three years of effort before he realized his deepest nature? How to sell more cigarettes? And what are you thinking about as you progess in the effort to see your own ultimate nature? And who or what is doing that thinking? Is it Brahma thinking about himself, or mind trying to discover its own nature, or ego spinning its wheels? And who or what is able to write and read these words? Shadows? Are you aware of a pain in the right side of your head? Do you have a head, or does it have you? Do you need to read a book to answer these questions? Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2006 Report Share Posted May 22, 2006 You guys shoud be careful of your axiomatic assumptions. The " Mind " in its most universal sense is not in any way dependent on the brain. Just a little look at Hindu (Vedic/Upnaishad/Ayurvedic) theory shows that from Brahman (the Self) arises Buddhi (the intillect), and then the Mind, and then the Body (or then the elements and senses and then the Body--franklly I can't remember the precise order at this time). So what is the brain? It is the Body and thus a product of the Mind. The brain I think is a product of the mind in the form that reflects a persons vasanas and karma. It is an organ that is predisposed the way the ego is predisposed. In the average person it functions to limit consciousness, according to the persons tendencies. The average person will have the brain basically " asleep " . The brain will funcntion in a very stepped dwon way (like a crude radio) and have access to a very limited form of Mind. Basically it functions to allow only a bunch of mentation and desire. An occasional person will be a " genius " , and he will have a slightly better radio so to speak. But a " spiritual " person (in the truest sense) will have a brain that is awake to consciousness. He will be aware of and function in realms of consiosuness that even a " genius " could only dream of. And of course, the structures in the brain that support such awareness, are present in almost everyone. They are simply not being used. That is why a person can do spiritual sadhana and begin to also wake to such possibilites. Now as for enlightenment,,,,Hmm, that is a big question. My feeling is that probably in a truly enlightened being (and I think these beings are exceedingly rare), the brain is fully awake. However, that is a by product of enlightenment. The turly enlightened being is perfectly identified with Brahman, The Self, and that is his point of view. The brain is not his concern, nor is the mind, or even Buddhi. If there is perfect freedom, then it cannot be a brain state, otherwise it would be subject to loss with damage of the brain or with death. Ramana Maharashi did not speak much about states of Yoga and the corresponding physiology. However, he did point out that that the primary center of consiousness that gives rise to all brain states (ordinary and extraordinary) is not in the brain. It is in the right side of the heart. Thus, even from a point of physiology and anatomy, the brain is not the primary, but the secondary organ of consiousness. What Nisargadatta (and Ramana) preferrred to talk about was that which is primary and freedom: Self Nature as consciousness itself or BEING. They did not denigrate other paths, but only felt that they were not the direct route. The direct route is to locate and be that which you are in Truth (This is defintiely the instrucction Nisargadatta was given by his Guru). So that is my two cents on the subject Christo epston wrote: In a message dated 5/20/2006 10:51:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, stuartkfmn writes: > >L.E: This is a reminder that mind is a creation of brain, which is a > creation > >of the cellular community called the human organism. And that ego, > person, > >or self, is the creation or expression of mind. Each level has no > independent > >existence of its own and relies on the supporting levels for its > apparent > >existence. No brain, no mind, no ego, person, or self. In this > sense there is > >the question of who or what is in control, and who or what is the > reality of the > >situation Most of these discussions see the problem and solution > within the > >realm of mind, and ignore the " neural network " of brain in and by > which this > >all occurrs. If you start with: 'I am the representative of a > commnity of > >cells and am authorized to defend, protect and enhance the survival > of my > >community, you will have this discussion from a more practical and > realistic place, > >and understand the nature of the I am state as to its purpose and > existence. > > > >Larry Epston > > > > > > From where I sit the concept of the " brain enlightenment " and the > " spiritual enlightenment " don't contradict each other:-) > So I can agree with your story and still believe in the story that we > take our spiritual mind with us from life to life:-) > The truth is to be found where those two stories point. > I personally love a paradox:-) > The paradox being that they don't point at anything... and that is > somehow comforting to me... > > Stu > > L.E: Perhaps enlightenment can be seen as becoming aware of the levels > supporting one's own existence. The more levels you are aware of, the more > enlightened you are. For instance, ego can become aware of mind, and that is one > step of enlightment. Each level that the ego can integrate into its own sense > of self is further enlightenment. Those whose sense of self embraces the > whole of existence, the beyond, the absolute, are the most enlightened. Larry Epston www.epston.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2006 Report Share Posted May 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 5/20/2006 10:51:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > stuartkfmn writes: > > > >L.E: This is a reminder that mind is a creation of brain, which is a > > creation > > >of the cellular community called the human organism. And that ego, > > person, > > >or self, is the creation or expression of mind. Each level has no > > independent > > >existence of its own and relies on the supporting levels for its > > apparent > > >existence. No brain, no mind, no ego, person, or self. In this > > sense there is > > >the question of who or what is in control, and who or what is the > > reality of the > > >situation Most of these discussions see the problem and solution > > within the > > >realm of mind, and ignore the " neural network " of brain in and by > > which this > > >all occurrs. If you start with: 'I am the representative of a > > commnity of > > >cells and am authorized to defend, protect and enhance the survival > > of my > > >community, you will have this discussion from a more practical and > > realistic place, > > >and understand the nature of the I am state as to its purpose and > > existence. > > > > > >Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > From where I sit the concept of the " brain enlightenment " and the > > " spiritual enlightenment " don't contradict each other:-) > > So I can agree with your story and still believe in the story that we > > take our spiritual mind with us from life to life:-) > > The truth is to be found where those two stories point. > > I personally love a paradox:-) > > The paradox being that they don't point at anything... and that is > > somehow comforting to me... > > > > Stu > > > > L.E: Perhaps enlightenment can be seen as becoming aware of the levels > > supporting one's own existence. The more levels you are aware of, the more > > enlightened you are. For instance, ego can become aware of mind, and that is one > > step of enlightment. Each level that the ego can integrate into its own sense > > of self is further enlightenment. Those whose sense of self embraces the > > whole of existence, the beyond, the absolute, are the most enlightened. > > Larry Epston > www.epston.com > > > > > > [ There lived in a land far away......a small group of shadows that worshiped the sun. They believed that one day....with enough effort.. they could become just like their god. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2006 Report Share Posted May 22, 2006 You offer a good two cents Christo:-) When minds and words get together we get some wonderful stories... but they are just stories:-) Stu chris boys <tony_s_sandford wrote: > > You guys shoud be careful of your axiomatic assumptions. The " Mind " in its most universal sense is not in any way dependent on the brain. Just a little look at Hindu (Vedic/Upnaishad/Ayurvedic) theory shows that from Brahman (the Self) arises Buddhi (the intillect), and then the Mind, and then the Body (or then the elements and senses and then the Body--franklly I can't remember the precise order at this time). > > So what is the brain? It is the Body and thus a product of the Mind. The brain I think is a product of the mind in the form that reflects a persons vasanas and karma. It is an organ that is predisposed the way the ego is predisposed. In the average person it functions to limit consciousness, according to the persons tendencies. The average person will have the brain basically " asleep " . The brain will funcntion in a very stepped dwon way (like a crude radio) and have access to a very limited form of Mind. Basically it functions to allow only a bunch of mentation and desire. An occasional person will be a " genius " , and he will have a slightly better radio so to speak. > > But a " spiritual " person (in the truest sense) will have a brain that is awake to consciousness. He will be aware of and function in realms of consiosuness that even a " genius " could only dream of. > > And of course, the structures in the brain that support such awareness, are present in almost everyone. They are simply not being used. That is why a person can do spiritual sadhana and begin to also wake to such possibilites. > > Now as for enlightenment,,,,Hmm, that is a big question. My feeling is that probably in a truly enlightened being (and I think these beings are exceedingly rare), the brain is fully awake. However, that is a by product of enlightenment. The turly enlightened being is perfectly identified with Brahman, The Self, and that is his point of view. The brain is not his concern, nor is the mind, or even Buddhi. > > If there is perfect freedom, then it cannot be a brain state, otherwise it would be subject to loss with damage of the brain or with death. > > Ramana Maharashi did not speak much about states of Yoga and the corresponding physiology. However, he did point out that that the primary center of consiousness that gives rise to all brain states (ordinary and extraordinary) is not in the brain. It is in the right side of the heart. Thus, even from a point of physiology and anatomy, the brain is not the primary, but the secondary organ of consiousness. > > What Nisargadatta (and Ramana) preferrred to talk about was that which is primary and freedom: Self Nature as consciousness itself or BEING. They did not denigrate other paths, but only felt that they were not the direct route. The direct route is to locate and be that which you are in Truth (This is defintiely the instrucction Nisargadatta was given by his Guru). > > So that is my two cents on the subject > > Christo > > > > > > epston wrote: > In a message dated 5/20/2006 10:51:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > stuartkfmn writes: > > > >L.E: This is a reminder that mind is a creation of brain, which is a > > creation > > >of the cellular community called the human organism. And that ego, > > person, > > >or self, is the creation or expression of mind. Each level has no > > independent > > >existence of its own and relies on the supporting levels for its > > apparent > > >existence. No brain, no mind, no ego, person, or self. In this > > sense there is > > >the question of who or what is in control, and who or what is the > > reality of the > > >situation Most of these discussions see the problem and solution > > within the > > >realm of mind, and ignore the " neural network " of brain in and by > > which this > > >all occurrs. If you start with: 'I am the representative of a > > commnity of > > >cells and am authorized to defend, protect and enhance the survival > > of my > > >community, you will have this discussion from a more practical and > > realistic place, > > >and understand the nature of the I am state as to its purpose and > > existence. > > > > > >Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > From where I sit the concept of the " brain enlightenment " and the > > " spiritual enlightenment " don't contradict each other:-) > > So I can agree with your story and still believe in the story that we > > take our spiritual mind with us from life to life:-) > > The truth is to be found where those two stories point. > > I personally love a paradox:-) > > The paradox being that they don't point at anything... and that is > > somehow comforting to me... > > > > Stu > > > > L.E: Perhaps enlightenment can be seen as becoming aware of the levels > > supporting one's own existence. The more levels you are aware of, the more > > enlightened you are. For instance, ego can become aware of mind, and that is one > > step of enlightment. Each level that the ego can integrate into its own sense > > of self is further enlightenment. Those whose sense of self embraces the > > whole of existence, the beyond, the absolute, are the most enlightened. > > Larry Epston > www.epston.com > > > > 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.