Hi All .
"Do You Know Your Own Mind" . . .
daz .
It's a trick question. 😀
Yes, I know my own mind in a sense as I can observe it in action.
No, I don't know my own mind, because to "know" something involves discernment, which is an action of the mind itself, and the knowledge can never be complete enough to know all of it.
(for once I'll keep my answer as simple as that hehe!)
All Love and Reiki Hugs
It's a trick question. 😀
Yes, I know my own mind in a sense as I can observe it in action.
No, I don't know my own mind, because to "know" something involves discernment, "which is an action of the mind itself" and the knowledge can never be complete enough to know all of it.
(for once I'll keep my answer as simple as that hehe!)
All Love and Reiki Hugs
Hi Giles . 🙂
Thanks for the reply . .
In reference to the orange type - Does the mind have a mind of It’s own . (lol) .
Doesn’t the mind encompass all actions, the realizations the non realizations the knowings the not knowings etc . .
Who allows the mind to be noisy - who quietens the mind .
I like to see the mind as a ferrari (lol) .
You can drive the car or you can allow the car to drive you .
Can you get to know the car Inside out - I would say It’s possible .
daz .
Oooooo ya just hadda go an push me dinchya! 😀
The mind is a manifestation of the True Self, but by observing the mind we are placing limits around it, thus seperating into mind and not-mind.
To actually cognize the mind in such a way as to fully and completely know it, would require something "bigger" that is outside of the mind, but because the mind is really the One that is everything, it is unlimited and there is nothing seperate, let alone anything seperate that could fully congnize it.
It's a bit like saying we are going to accurately model the functioning of all of the Earth with a computer program. To do that the computer program would have to know all the parameter and all the rules that govern all particles of the Earth, as well as storing seperate information about each and every particle of the Earth, everything on it, and everything 'outside' it that influences it, thus the computer would have to be larger than the Earth (and everything influencing it) itself. It's impossible. Hence why the Weather forcasters will only ever be able to approximate the weather, they will never be able to know it in advance.
The only way to know the mind is to Be the Self, completely, at which point the actual 'need' to know it wouldn't be there as that 'need' would only exist inside the dualistic concept of mind, and the compartmentalisation of things into 'knowledge' would disappear (the limits removed) to that Being is all Aware and all Knowing.
Is the mind a Ferrari. Yes. On a conceptual and limiting perspective it is. But even a Ferrari can't be everything as a seperate entity. Dualism cannot really exist except as a concept.
Well, you did ask. :rolleyes:
All Love and Reiki Hugs
Oooooo ya just hadda go an push me dinchya! 😀
Ha Ha . :p
The mind is a manifestation of the True Self, but by observing the mind we are placing limits around it, thus seperating into mind and not-mind.
Or the True self Is a manifestation of the mind . he hehe . . Beyond mind there Is no self . For the true self to manifest the mind the self must have already been (within mind) . Beyond mind what we are created the self along with our mindful universe . .
To actually cognize the mind in such a way as to fully and completely know it, would require something "bigger" that is outside of the mind, but because the mind is really the One that is everything, it is unlimited and there is nothing seperate, let alone anything seperate that could fully congnize it.
I agree . To know what’s Inside the box one perhaps needs to be outside the box looking In . (lol) . To understand the mind of a mad man One needs to be mad In order to understand . .
The only way to know the mind is to Be the Self, completely, at which point the actual 'need' to know it wouldn't be there as that 'need' would only exist inside the dualistic concept of mind, and the compartmentalisation of things into 'knowledge' would disappear (the limits removed) to that Being is all Aware and all Knowing.
I like that Giles . I agree wholeheartedly . .
Is the mind a Ferrari. Yes. On a conceptual and limiting perspective it is. But even a Ferrari can't be everything as a seperate entity. Dualism cannot really exist except as a concept.
Well, you did ask.
Yes my analogy of the mind being like ferrari Is limiting (lol) The question remains to many though, Who’s In the driving seat . Is the controller being controlled - Who’s the Puppet master and who’s the Puppet .. Is the Individual thinking and feeling within a mind set that Is a direct expression of their true self . .
For example - Is a deeply religious Individual expressing what they are or are they expressing themselves within the constraints of what Is held dear to them via religious beliefs?
Does an Individual In that respect know their own mind . Does the true self have beliefs . I would say not .
So who or what Is In expression - when It Is not their true self?
daz .
Or the True self Is a manifestation of the mind . he hehe . . Beyond mind there Is no self . For the true self to manifest the mind the self must have already been (within mind) . Beyond mind what we are created the self along with our mindful universe . .
This is why I differentiate in language with the "self" (little "s") and True "Self" (big "S"). In short, if you can observe it, you can't Be it. The little self can be observed, but the True Self cannot. It's just a label, and others may refer to it as Oneness, complete Awareness, One Consciousness etc. I think the sanskrit term "adviaita" sums it up really, when it translates as "Not Two".
Yes my analogy of the mind being like ferrari Is limiting (lol) The question remains to many though, Who’s In the driving seat . Is the controller being controlled - Who’s the Puppet master and who’s the Puppet .. Is the Individual thinking and feeling within a mind set that Is a direct expression of their true self . .
Who am "I"? "I" can observe the mind, so I cannot be the mind. Yet, the mind is inclusive in the "I". (in the "I" of the beholder hehe!)
Anyone want to try and observe their Self...?
Try the exercises here: [url]The Headless Way -- Douglas Harding[/url]
(apologies to those who've seen me post that before, but I think it's wonderfully demonstrative of who we believe we are in comparison to who we really are)
For example - Is a deeply religious Individual expressing what they are or are they expressing themselves within the constraints of what Is held dear to them via religious beliefs?
Depends what they are expressing. If they speak from truth, then anyone can take what they say, put it into practice and find it to be true for themselves. If they speak from belief, then it will be up to the individuals to test it, and if it cannot be found to be true, then it is just a belief.
Does an Individual In that respect know their own mind . Does the true self have beliefs . I would say not .
So who or what Is In expression - when It Is not their true self?
Agreed. The True Self cannot have beliefs, only complete awareness/knowledge.
To me, I would say that expression is a symptom of the mind, manifesting through the dualistic beliefs of the mind. Whether that is suffering, boredom, happiness, whatever, they are all based on comparison between seperate things, and that seperateness is duality, so it cannot be true.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
This is why I differentiate in language with the "self" (little "s") and True "Self" (big "S"). In short, if you can observe it, you can't Be it. The little self can be observed, but the True Self cannot. It's just a label, and others may refer to it as Oneness, complete Awareness, One Consciousness etc. I think the sanskrit term "adviaita" sums it up really, when it translates as "Not Two".
Hi Giles . .
I see the self as what we are within mind . I would say there are many references made In respects to the higher self the real self the true self and there pretty much In reference to the same old self lol . Our mindful experience allows our Individual self to realize what we are, not exactly perceiving what we are but In the way the universe works It allows “I” to perceive “another” Individual as being the same as what I am . So when we see ourselves In everything else we are actually perceiving the self . Beyond mind / beyond our mindful universe there Is no self to perceive .
Who am "I"? "I" can observe the mind, so I cannot be the mind. Yet, the mind is inclusive in the "I". (in the "I" of the beholder hehe!)
He heh ehehe .
Depends what they are expressing. If they speak from truth, then anyone can take what they say, put it into practice and find it to be true for themselves. If they speak from belief, then it will be up to the individuals to test it, and if it cannot be found to be true, then it is just a belief.
What Is or Isn’t true are constructions made within mind . What we are does not know of truth or falsities. I also understand though that If the self Is In expression then what Is expressed Is known to be of truth or how It Is .
Agreed. The True Self cannot have beliefs, only complete awareness/knowledge.
To me, I would say that expression is a symptom of the mind, manifesting through the dualistic beliefs of the mind. Whether that is suffering, boredom, happiness, whatever, they are all based on comparison between separate things, and that separateness is duality, so it cannot be true.
I would say that In order to realize the self one must drop all concepts and beliefs . So when an Individual Is In expression of the self (true self In your eyes) that Individual Is not coming from any mindful conditioning and yet In being In expression of the self the truth will flow .
What we are ”just Is” . Only truth of what that Is will come from within mind .
dazzle .