Dependent Origination

[Diebert van Rhijn]

To have an "unconscious mind" or even some "unconsciousness" as a place or organ somewhere does not seem like helpful concepts.

The brain is an organ, and that's where the mind is. Consciousness is probably a process that works very much like other neural activity.

The mind is actually somewhere in biological sense according to you but consciousness is "probably a process" like neural activity? It seems to me "mind" is more like a concept, a label for certain behavior or a collection of mental behaviors. Especially thinking and attention. When attention or thought is not there, it's just not there. What's left is whatever.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Whoever said that should take his own advice and retract those words.

"as an attainment of a person,"

You don't get it.

The brain is an organ, and that's where the mind is.

You don't get it.
Go back to square one.
Get off the forum.
Work on the Ego.

[jupiviv]

To have an "unconscious mind" or even some "unconsciousness" as a place or organ somewhere does not seem like helpful concepts.

The brain is an organ, and that's where the mind is. Consciousness is probably a process that works very much like other neural activity.

The mind is actually somewhere in biological sense according to you but consciousness is "probably a process" like neural activity?

The process of respiration occurs somewhere in our body. Why is mind any different?

It seems to me "mind" is more like a concept, a label for certain behavior or a collection of mental behaviors. Especially thinking and attention. When attention or thought is not there, it's just not there. What's left is whatever.

Well, mental behaviours occur somewhere. Conscious thought is just one subset - in most cases a very small subset - of mental processes.

[jupiviv]

Whoever said that should take his own advice and retract those words.

"as an attainment of a person,"

You don't get it.

Who is "you"? If attainment cannot be attributed to a person then neither can non-attainment. Anyone who says of another person that he has attained or not attained is guilty of attributing attainment to himself. So if you want to be intellectually honest, you should be silent.

The brain is an organ, and that's where the mind is.

You don't get it.
Go back to square one.
Get off the forum.
Work on the Ego.

So where do you think the mind is located?

[Leyla Shen]

So where do you think the mind is located?

Wherever its causes are.

[Leyla Shen]

j:Continuity requires a beginning and end and a contrast with something that doesn't continue.

L: All three conditions are met with finite things since finite things are not themselves the continuity of finitude. Thus, finite things are not “in-here(nt)” (how’s that for a string of coherent symbolic logic) and, since this is the case, it is the case that there is a continuity of finitude.

j: Just because finite things aren't inherent doesn't mean they don't exist or continue. They are a continuation of their own finitude, but not of finitude as a whole.

Right. And therefore:

j: If the entirety of finitude(the infinite) is said to be continuous, then the definition of continuation must be changed to mean "eternity".

L: So, you are saying you can bind (limit) the infinite in space (‘as long as “there” is not a particular location [i.e., a finite thing]’) but not time? The infinite is every when but not every where?

j: How can the emboldened part mean that the infinite is bound in space? It means the *opposite* of that.

Because the “in” in the statement implies that if the infinite is “there” (in a particular location/finite thing) it must necessarily be bound by a particular location/finite thing. This is clearly impossible since the infinite would be bounded rather than unbounded in that case.

j: The infinite cannot be wholly present in one location precisely because it is present in all locations.

Wholly? Who said anything about wholly; me, or you?

What about partially?

L: See above.

j: There is no contradiction. The finitude of all things cannot be present in one thing.

L: You’re not listening.

j: See above.

No, you.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

"as an attainment of a person,"

You don't get it.

Who is "you"? If attainment cannot be attributed to a person then neither can non-attainment. Anyone who says of another person that he has attained or not attained is guilty of attributing attainment to himself. So if you want to be intellectually honest, you should be silent.

So far Jup what you have is that the mind is located in the brain, that enlightenment is something you attain and that it's attained via the body. The body/brain being your possession or "person"-al and the source of consciousness, right?

The brain is an organ, and that's where the mind is.

So where do you think the mind is located?

The mind isn't 'located' in any place. That's like me asking you what time consciousness is.

Though if you are looking to find yours, and it doesn't turn out to be in the brain, maybe check the garbage?

[Dennis Mahar]

It's the same block of marble
taking a hit by heavy hitters.

The unchanging is that jup avatar.
the dude in the pic looks decidedly ill.
get him to a clinic.
get rid of him.

[jupiviv]

j:Continuity requires a beginning and end and a contrast with something that doesn't continue.

L: All three conditions are met with finite things since finite things are not themselves the continuity of finitude. Thus, finite things are not “in-here(nt)” (how’s that for a string of coherent symbolic logic) and, since this is the case, it is the case that there is a continuity of finitude.

j: Just because finite things aren't inherent doesn't mean they don't exist or continue. They are a continuation of their own finitude, but not of finitude as a whole.

Right. And therefore:

j: If the entirety of finitude(the infinite) is said to be continuous, then the definition of continuation must be changed to mean "eternity".

L: So, you are saying you can bind (limit) the infinite in space (‘as long as “there” is not a particular location [i.e., a finite thing]’) but not time? The infinite is every when but not every where?

j: How can the emboldened part mean that the infinite is bound in space? It means the *opposite* of that.

Because the “in” in the statement implies that if the infinite is “there” (in a particular location/finite thing) it must necessarily be bound by a particular location/finite thing. This is clearly impossible since the infinite would be bounded rather than unbounded in that case.

I think you may not have noticed that the "in" was in your statement, not mine.

j: The infinite cannot be wholly present in one location precisely because it is present in all locations.

Wholly? Who said anything about wholly; me, or you?

What about partially?

A part of the infinite is not the infinite. It is in all locations equally partially, and is itself not located anywhere, so there cannot be any question of partial presence. If it is present then it is either wholly present (everywhere) or else not at all (somewhere).

L: See above.

j: There is no contradiction. The finitude of all things cannot be present in one thing.

L: You’re not listening.

j: See above.

No, you.

*claps*

[jupiviv]

"as an attainment of a person,"

You don't get it.

Who is "you"? If attainment cannot be attributed to a person then neither can non-attainment. Anyone who says of another person that he has attained or not attained is guilty of attributing attainment to himself. So if you want to be intellectually honest, you should be silent.

So far Jup what you have is that the mind is located in the brain, that enlightenment is something you attain and that it's attained via the body. The body/brain being your possession or "person"-al and the source of consciousness, right?

My body and more specifically my brain seems to be the direct physical cause and location of my consciousness. Its *source* is a lot of things. Ultimately there is nothing it is not.

The brain is an organ, and that's where the mind is.

So where do you think the mind is located?

The mind isn't 'located' in any place. That's like me asking you what time consciousness is.

The mind is just like any other physical/finite thing and is located in relation to other things(space). I don't know what you mean by time consciousness.

Though if you are looking to find yours, and it doesn't turn out to be in the brain, maybe check the garbage?

So attributing attainment to a person is wrong, but attributing idiocy to them is fine?

So where do you think the mind is located?

Wherever its causes are.

It cannot be identical to its causes, so it is located where its causes *aren't*.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The process of respiration occurs somewhere in our body. Why is mind any different?

It's just not in the same category of things. There's no diagram like we have for respiration. Not even a clear biological definition. We could just as well define it like something shared since our concepts are definitely shared and exchanged. They grow in direct relation to culture and its internal communication. In that sense I'm not sure if mind is even a body function. Perhaps it's a function of communication. And communication as a whole is a function of some group of organisms.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

My body and more specifically my brain seems to be the direct physical cause and location of my consciousness.

Egotistical attachment to the body is creating the false notion that the body is your Self. Recognizing it is 'not me' (the same can be said for any appearance), you'll see it is only an impermanent formation and is not the source or 'location' of consciousness, but rather a fleeting appearance arising/fading of consciousness. As all such experiences of it pass by or change, consciousness remains.

So where do you think the mind is located?

The mind isn't 'located' in any place. That's like me asking you what time consciousness is.

I don't know what you mean by time consciousness.

lol, you asked 'where' I think the mind is 'located',

You act as if a few words limit all existence, where, what, how, etc.

If the mind can't be explained in terms of "where" or "what" to you, then somethings wrong.

Personally I think the mind is arriving at 6oclock and it's currently residing on George St,
if the traffic isn't too bad of course, there are a lot of other mind-vehicles on the streets.

Though if you are looking to find yours, and it doesn't turn out to be in the brain, maybe check the garbage?

So attributing attainment to a person is wrong, but attributing idiocy to them is fine?
[/quote]

I didn't attribute idiocy to a person, for the very good reason, there is no person.

The other good reason is that I didn't call you an idiot, I only said you might want to check the garbage and/or your pockets.

[jupiviv]

The process of respiration occurs somewhere in our body. Why is mind any different?

It's just not in the same category of things. There's no diagram like we have for respiration. Not even a clear biological definition.

We do know it is a collection of electrochemical processes in the brain.

We could just as well define it like something shared since our concepts are definitely shared and exchanged.

Yes, we can define it any way we want. But if it is defined as consciousness, emotions etc. then it is seated in the brain.

[jupiviv]

Egotistical attachment to the body is creating the false notion that the body is your Self. Recognizing it is 'not me' (the same can be said for any appearance), you'll see it is only an impermanent formation and is not the source or 'location' of consciousness, but rather a fleeting appearance arising/fading of consciousness.

My Self is the same as the Self of all things. But that doesn't change the fact that I have a private self/mind/body that exists relative to other things. All appearances are fleeting in the context of eternity, but what exactly does "fleeting" mean in that context? It could be a second, or a life.

As all such experiences of it pass by or change, consciousness remains.

You've been reading too much corrupted Eastern scripture. Consciousness is as impermanent as anything else.

If the mind can't be explained in terms of "where" or "what" to you, then somethings wrong.

There is if the mind is a finite thing like consciousness.

I didn't attribute idiocy to a person, for the very good reason, there is no person.

The other good reason is that I didn't call you an idiot, I only said you might want to check the garbage and/or your pockets.

There is no reason to categorically say "there is no person." In fact, doing so would inevitably lead to self-contradiction, as you have amply demonstrated.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

jup
"Consciousness is as impermanent as anything else."


Appearances are impermanent, the fading away or changing of whatever experience arises 'in' consciousness.

Yet the arising/fading continues on. The body, which is not the Self, is subject to dissolution, but, since it is not the Self, the passing away of the body is not 'the end' and has no affect on the eternity(deathless) nature of the mind.

This teaching 'not me' is without a doubt the most fundamental teaching from any sage, especially the Buddha.
How else could he have spoken of one experiencing hundreds of lifetimes if this were not the teaching?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The process of respiration occurs somewhere in our body. Why is mind any different?

It's just not in the same category of things. There's no diagram like we have for respiration. Not even a clear biological definition.

We do know it is a collection of electrochemical processes in the brain.

Yes, like all our thinking, consciousnesses, feelings, strokes, hunger, pain, suffering, world view, etc. You're not saying anything here.

Bottom-line is that if you cannot extent your reasoning beyond your body then your philosophizing won't be able to go beyond your ego.

[jupiviv]

Bottom-line is that if you cannot extent your reasoning beyond your body then your philosophizing won't be able to go beyond your ego.

I don't know what you mean by extending my reasoning behind the body. Are you saying that I am limited only to reasoning *about* my body if I say it is a part of it? Consciousness is a part of the ordinary physical world I see all around me. If it were separate from it, then there could be no interaction between my consciousness and the physical world. I couldn't even be writing this, and you couldn't read it.

[jupiviv]

Appearances are impermanent, the fading away or changing of whatever experience arises 'in' consciousness.

Things appear *to* consciousness, or are experienced *by* it, but they also exist apart from it. If they didn't then they couldn't appear or be experienced. They would arise and fade even if there were no conscious mind to experience them. Not to mention that consciousness itself is an appearance in your mind just like other things that appear there.

The body, which is not the Self, is subject to dissolution, but, since it is not the Self, the passing away of the body is not 'the end' and has no affect on the eternity(deathless) nature of the mind.

The body is just as much the Self as the mind is. In Buddhist texts the word "mind" has multiple meanings. Terms like "Buddha-mind" don't refer to consciousness.

This teaching 'not me' is without a doubt the most fundamental teaching from any sage, especially the Buddha.
How else could he have spoken of one experiencing hundreds of lifetimes if this were not the teaching?

There is nothing wrong with calling something "me". It is just a word, a pointer. Or maybe a category. It is only when this category is used ignorantly that problems arise.

The word "lifetime" as used in Buddhist texts isn't meant to be interpreted in the ordinary sense. A single moment can be a lifetime, as can a million years. Our consciousness can be said to die when we go to sleep, and reincarnate when we wake up. Or when we shift our attention from one thing to another. Any division of time can be defined as a lifetime or an appearance.

[Leyla Shen]

j: I think you may not have noticed that the "in" was in your statement, not mine.

Then your thinking would be... wrong.

The “in” in my statement was the explicit expression of it in yours:

j: A part of the infinite is not the infinite.

You are the only one claiming such a claim has been made.

[The infinite] is in all locations equally partially, and is itself not located anywhere, so there cannot be any question of partial presence. If it is present then it is either wholly present (everywhere) or else not at all (somewhere).

Yes, the infinite, as I said, is necessarily everywhere and this statement of yours is in contradiction to your qualifying reply to my statement that the infinite is necessarily everywhere, including every particular location (i.e., every finite thing).

Your qualifying reply (here it is again, ‘as long as “there” is not a particular location [i.e., a finite thing]’) to the truth that, “the infinite is necessarily always there” amounts to this: the infinite cannot be in a particular location/finite thing since that would mean it is that particular location/finite thing and therefore it would not be infinite but finite.

*claps*

Like a seal. Do you bark, too?

j: So where do you think the mind is located?

LS: Wherever its causes are.

j: It cannot be identical to its causes, so it is located where its causes *aren't*.

Like a bolt of lightning is both cause and effect, the mind, like any thing, is also both any and all of its causes and effects.

[jupiviv]

j: I think you may not have noticed that the "in" was in your statement, not mine.

Then your thinking would be... wrong.

The “in” in my statement was the explicit expression of it in yours:

It was not, since there should have been a "not" before it.

[The infinite] is in all locations equally partially, and is itself not located anywhere, so there cannot be any question of partial presence. If it is present then it is either wholly present (everywhere) or else not at all (somewhere).

Yes, the infinite, as I said, is necessarily everywhere and this statement of yours is in contradiction to your qualifying reply

You said it was always there, and I qualified your statement to not mean a specific location. It was neither in contradiction nor accordance with whatever you actually happened to mean by it, but you obtusely assumed it was the former.

to my statement that the infinite is necessarily everywhere, including every particular location (i.e., every finite thing).

The infinite doesn't *literally* include or reside in every location/thing because that implies something else besides that which is said to be included or resided in. The infinite is absolutely nowhere, because it is absolutely everywhere.

Your qualifying reply (here it is again, ‘as long as “there” is not a particular location [i.e., a finite thing]’) to the truth that, “the infinite is necessarily always there” amounts to this: the infinite cannot be in a particular location/finite thing since that would mean it is that particular location/finite thing and therefore it would not be infinite but finite.

Good to see you catching up.

*claps*

Like a seal. Do you bark, too?

No, but I LRFH.

Like a bolt of lightning is both cause and effect, the mind, like any thing, is also both any and all of its causes and effects.

Only in relation to the infinite. In the language of cause and effect, a thing is separate from its causes(ultimately, everything else but it).

[Leyla Shen]

No, but I LRFH.

Oh, I have absolutely no doubt about that!

You have way too much time on your hands. Someone should put you to some good ol’ practical use. (:

It was not, since there should have been a "not" before it.

It was so, since its explicit expression in my statement means it was implicit in yours. Didn’t need the bloody extraneous “not”!

You said it was always there, and I qualified your statement to not mean a specific location. It was neither in contradiction nor accordance with whatever you actually happened to mean by it, but you obtusely assumed it was the former.

Oh, that’s right. I forgot. You’re just my Zennish reflection...

Good to see you catching up.

Kiss my arse!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Bottom-line is that if you cannot extent your reasoning beyond your body then your philosophizing won't be able to go beyond your ego.

I don't know what you mean by extending my reasoning b̶e̶h̶i̶n̶d̶ [beyond] the body. Are you saying that I am limited only to reasoning *about* my body if I say it is a part of it? Consciousness is a part of the ordinary physical world I see all around me.

I think it's better not to mix the problem of mind with the problem of body. They are both part of larger extended worlds (of bodies, of mind) for sure. But putting the mind inside a body or the body (image) inside a mind is not going to work on the long run in terms of philosophy.

[Dennis Mahar]

Bodymind as 'block of marble'

It's possible to Categorical Think it.

It's possible to recontextualise in the experience of it.

A Contextual Thinking.

An always/already is 'grokked' as Spirit in 'block of marble'

A 'place to come from' Contextually,
in order to,
for the sake of 'Spirit in flight'

A havingness for Rilke, a doyen,

Bodymind as,

place, settlement, camp, soil, garden
gardener gardening.

Walking to the sound of a different drum.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Things appear *to* consciousness, or are experienced *by* it, but they also exist apart from it. If they didn't then they couldn't appear or be experienced. They would arise and fade even if there were no conscious mind to experience them. Not to mention that consciousness itself is an appearance in your mind just like other things that appear there.

"Objects are discriminated by the ignorant who are addicted to assertion and negation, because their intelligence has not been acute enough to penetrate into the truth that there is nothing but what is seen of the mind itself."
Buddha

You
don't
get
it.

There is nothing wrong with calling something "me". It is just a word, a pointer. Or maybe a category. It is only when this category is used ignorantly that problems arise.

The word "lifetime" as used in Buddhist texts isn't meant to be interpreted in the ordinary sense. A single moment can be a lifetime, as can a million years. Our consciousness can be said to die when we go to sleep, and reincarnate when we wake up. Or when we shift our attention from one thing to another. Any division of time can be defined as a lifetime or an appearance.

lol.
Maybe I interpreted it wrong here too?

"Which do you think is the more: the flood of tears, which weeping
and wailing you have shed upon this long way-hurrying and hastening
through this round of rebirths, united with the undesired, separated
from the desired this, or the waters of the four oceans?
Long time have you suffered the death of father and mother, of sons,
daughters, brothers, and sisters. And whilst you were thus
suffering, you have, verily, shed more tears upon this long way than
there is water in the four oceans." Buddha


You
don't
get
it.


The body exists only as an appearance arising of the mind, it does not exist independent of experience itself. Neither does any 'external world' you imagine.

It is ignorance in every possible occasion to call it 'me' because it is 'not me'.

Discrimination of appearances leading to the notion that these varieties of objects are actually in existence. This idea of the self-nature of things leading to the notion of an ego-entity and it's possessions.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

An always/already is 'grokked' as Spirit in 'block of marble'

A 'place to come from' Contextually,
in order to,
for the sake of 'Spirit in flight'

A havingness for Rilke, a doyen,

Bodymind as,

place, settlement, camp, soil, garden
gardener gardening.

Walking to the sound of a different drum.

'Rilke' and 'drum' lines flew right past?