Shambhu

Member
  • Content count

    107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Shambhu

Personal Information

  • Location
    The South
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

393 profile views
  1. @RMQualtrough I would agree that mind is a broader term. The sense of self, or ego, is part of the mind. However, mind is not unlimited; it is just an appearing within awareness.
  2. @ChadT The confusion I most often see is this. The individual ego believes it is the dreamer, when it is actually just the dream.
  3. @RMQualtrough I think "bubbles" is just an analogy, meaning that the content of one is different from the other. It would be the same as saying the dinning room is different from the bathroom. "Rooms" are a distinction we make because it's useful, but in actuality, you cannot divide space. It's always a singular whole. That being said, the contents in one room are different from the contents in another room, just like the contents in one mind are different from the contents in another mind. It is the contents which we refer to as mind. The existence or non-existence of time does not logically show that only one mind exist, even if all contents are simultaneously now. There are other, more subtle problems here as well. If time does not exist (and you are correct, it doesn't), then minds do not exist. Time is just a measurement in change, but ultimate reality is changeless. Since by definition minds are constantly changing, if you remove change, you remove the mind. It's not that there is one or many minds; there are no minds at all. This is an absolute view. If we are speaking at the relative level, then we have to conclude there are many minds, just as there are many bodies. Here is another problem. In your current experience of now, which is all there is, how do you even know there was a past. All you have access to is present experience, which includes the memory of the past, but a memory is not the same as the past or proof of it. Since, you have no real evidence for the past, you cannot argue that a past mind is the same or different. One last problem is this. Let's assume there is a past, and because there is a past, there is change. Since there is change, there is the possibility for at least one mind. That much should feel self-evident, since we are thinking. How do you know that the mind from 10 minutes ago is the same mind as you are experiencing now? The contents of the past mind would be different from the contents of the current mind, and they would not share the same time or space. If they are different in every way, to call them identical would violate the law of noncontradiction. The only thing making them appear the same is a current thought that claims as much.
  4. @RMQualtrough There are two ways to argue this, and your logic fails under both. LOL. Replace "minds" with chairs and see if you have some how proved there is only one chair in existence.
  5. @RMQualtrough Ultimately, that is true, but on a relative level, time is needed for change and minds need change to exist. Otherwise, you could not distinguish one thought from the next. So to speak of minds is to speak of the relative level. On that level, the question isn't if the mind now is different from the mind in the past, but is if this mind different from another mind while sharing the same moment.
  6. @Focus What makes you think that non-dual realization will enable you to better navigate the world? At worst it will change nothing, and at best it will dissolve your world ;-)
  7. @Ineedanswers Everything you think, feel, or perceive (sights, sounds, etc.) is all part of your mind. If you were to experience what another was thinking or sensing, that would also be a part of your mind. That which is aware of your mind, is the same as that which is aware of another mind, but that awareness is not itself a mind. If you conflate awareness with the mind, you will have this confusion about the inability to share other's experiences. I have tried to state this the best I can without getting into all the I, no I, you, no you mire.
  8. @IAmAtomical Meditation is both a state and the process used to arrive at that state. The meditation state is the steady flow of attention to one thing. That one thing can be large or small, subtle or gross. It can literally be everything in awareness or limited to just the breath. The process of noticing your attention wandering and bringing it back to your object is called concentration. When the attention is able to remain on the object uninterrupted, it is meditation. When meditation is sustained until the duality of subject and object dissolve, it is samadhi. This is the definition according to Yoga.
  9. @Terell Kirby This is basically correct, albeit incomplete. What is perceived is not the perceiver, as you call it, but it is not other than the perceiver either. In the same way, a wave is water, but water is not a wave. The perceiver cannot be perceived, which would cause an infinite regress, but it can be known. However, that knowledge is also not the knower of it. Ultimately, the knower/knowing/known are artificial distinctions, because there is only one thing (I use that word loosely here). It's like referring to the front and back of a object as if they are two different things, when they are actually just two perspectives of the same thing. If they were actually two different things, I could take the front and you could take the back. I think you are asking the right questions, but I encourage you to contemplate them deeply, with a calm and focused mind. Try to actually realize the truth directly. Be open to whatever is already true, and don't allow previously accepted concepts to color your vision. Keep up the good work though.
  10. @RMQualtrough Essence is what it is to be something. Two things can have the same essence, but be different in appearance. Two trees share the same essence, "treeness", but they will appear different.
  11. @WokeBloke They may all appear different, but they are all the same "mind stuff." When the mind dreams of a tree, are you suggesting the dream tree is something different from mind? If yes, then what? If no, then you admit the mind and the tree are one and the same. Change is an illusion that is dependent upon time, but time appears in that which does not change. Here again, the differences are only apparent. I suggest you take some time and actually contemplate the examples given. Don't try to make reality conform to your limited perspective. Be open to seeing what is true from all vantage points.
  12. @WokeBloke When you dream at night, are the lights, sounds, and sensations all mind or are they all different from mind? There is relatively real and absolutely real. Anything that changes is relatively real. Think of an ice sculpture of a swan. What is more true, that it is water or that it is a swan? It is more true that it is water since it was water before it was a sculpture, while it was a sculpture, and after it was a sculpture. The more enduring truth is granted greater value. That which never changes is the absolute truth or reality. Imagine the creator before creation. What would he create from except himself?
  13. @WokeBloke Non-dual teachings can very, but I'll offer some comments based on the traditional non-dual teachings of Yoga and Vedanta. The sanskrit word for non-dual is Advaita, which does literally mean "not two," and it is specifically used for the Self, or Atman. However, in Advaita Vedanta, there is only one Self. There are other schools that accepts multiple selves, but they typically don't have only the Self in their cosmology. For example, in the Sankhya, there are many selves, or Purushas, but there is also a singular Prakriti, often translated as nature. Therefore, Sanhkya is not considered a non-dual school of thought. I subscribe to Advaita Vedanta and the non-dual Yoga traditions (the Siddha school specifically), so I will comment from this vantage point. Yes, the Self and awareness (or consciousness) are synonymous. In Vedanta, there is only the Self, but it allows for distinctions. Look around your room and identify a few objects. How many did you see? The correct answer is one :-D All you ever see is one thing...light. Now think of dream you've experienced. Didn't it contain a myriad of people, places, and things? However, all of that was only one thing, the mind. Here is one last example. When you look into a mirror there many objects in the reflection, but the mirror is one alone. In this way, there is only ever one Self that projects a diversity of experiences. There is one more point to be made here. All of those distinctions are not real. By real I mean unchanging or enduring. There is only apparent multiplicity; it is not reality. Reality is one, changeless whole, and that you are.
  14. A thing is considered objective when it is believed to exist independently outside the subject. So if I look at a tree, I believe that tree to exist outside of my consciousness, and I believe that it is not dependent upon me (or any other individual) to exist. However, when I examine the evidence, I find that my beliefs are ungrounded. All I know of that tree is the perception of colors, or possibly other sense data, which are subject experiences. Of course, when I see a tree, there is more going on than just the perception of colors. There is also the appearing of the idea "tree" that is associated with those colors and the forms created by those colors. Additionally, there is the belief that arises with it that the tree is external to myself, yet all of this is just a part of my subjective experience. The tree that I experience is nothing more than a collection of mental events.
  15. I like what Edmund Husserl had to say about the subject. He claimed that objectivity is just another level of subjectivity. For example, we say that a thought is imminent, thus subjective, and a tree is transcendent, thus objective, but actually, what we call a tree is just another thing appearing within our own subjectivity. All we ever have access to is the subjective. Some things just have additional claims to objectivity.