What if the mind is conscious, an extension of consciousness?

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by lemex

Point on. I see this to. Another way of saying this is, even soul has mind.

The knowledge of relationships , specializations and mechanisms of mind,body soul , senses are age old and you may find some good insight
in this beautifully explained analogy with chariot in Kathopnishad . Even plato also used the same analogy with a minor difference (plato's allegory of chariot with good pictorial representation) . But both the comparisons essentially point to describe reality how it works and should really work with seeker through this mind-body-soul-apparatus.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Rah nam

I was trying to suggest something like that, yes.
The mind is part of what some call and understand as the Matrix. It is an energy structure which enables us as the incarnates to experience what we need to experience in order to evolve on a soul/spirit level.
The brain or some other parts of our system simply tune into the mind on that level we are at at that point. The level fluctuates all the time, depending on many things.

Hmmm, an energy structure that is in the brain/nervous system? You can't possibly know, understand and experience that, which is outside of yourself, thus is a man made imaginary concept.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

AH, I see why you are misunderstanding me....

I do not think atman is the lower self/mind/ego/unconscious and "thier" contents at all (including the mental sense of I am) however, I do think the lower mind/unconscious, its contents and the sense of I/mental sense of I am are important aspects or extensions of atman though. Atman is the physical experience of feeling of I am (present/presence). The objective physical feeling of atman/i am (present/presence) does not lie, only subjective mental feelings of the mind lies, and this is when the objective and the subjective play a very important role in all of this.

The purpose of self-realization and net-neti is for one to objectivily realize/observe/experience that atman (the physical feeling of I am present/presence) is one's true self, and that the conditioned/programmed/manipulated contents of the mind, including the thoughts of I am, that one has, is not one's true self, and one's mind that contains contents that states/perceives/experiences otherwise is falsely conditioned/programmed/manipulated, if you know what I mean? Self realization/net-neti leads one to the realization that the conditioned/programmed/manipulated contents of the mind is not atman/the physical feeling of I am (present/presence).

Did Jung talk about atman, or did you include that to try to speak my language, in an attempt to be on the same page as me?

Call it 'aspects of'/'extensions', call it 'contents', it's all much of a muchness and the end result is the same.

The sense of 'I am' (in any shape or form) doesn't arise from the self/Atman but from the ego/Ahamkara, it's the ego/Ahamkara that gives the self/Atman a sense of 'I am.' Your sense of 'I am' is not what you think you are, but the whole of your consciousness. What's not clear in either Jungian or Spirituality is what the self/Atman is conscious/aware of, because ego as consciousness/I am is an aspect/extension/content of self/Atman and not all of self/Atman. Self/Atman is beyond a sense of identity/individuation that is ego. Clinical ego-death occurs usually as a result of severe trauma, and what happens is the ego and all of its 'contents' collapse into the self, and often a period of not being able to function follows. Think of what happens when someone goes through emotional trauma, often they become disoriented and detached. That helps to understand the 'role' the ego can play.

What does self realisation actually mean? Because before that question can be answered there needs to be a clear understanding what the self actually is and without that it becomes meaningless - or what it means to an individual's ego.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

People reamain unaware of who they are because they ignore their unconscious aspects and contents .

And those unconscious aspects and contents are contained within the self/Atman so without an understanding of those aspects self-wareness isn't awareness of self at all. They balso give us a sense of 'I am' as much as the mental aspects because they contribute to our perceptions of who and what we are.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Atman does not think I am, because atman can not think I am, atman feels I am present/presence right here right now. Atman, thus brahman gave the "job" of thinking I am (and thinking in general) to the mind/ego to express and to be conscious of itself (atman thus brahman). Thinking via words/language (consciously and un/subconsciously) are the contents of the mind, contents of the mind are things or gives atman/brahman physical form.

If a sense of I am arises from an aspect/extension of the Atman, is that not still the Atman or are those aspects/extensions of the Atman seperate? The thinking of 'I am' and the whole of your consciousness as 'I am" are two very different beasties, because the Jungian 'I am' is the whole of your perceptual reality - which includes the thought of 'I am' rather than being the thought of 'I am'. The thought of 'I am' is not the perception of 'I am'. The mind and its 'contents' is one of the aspects that creates the frameworks of our perceptual reality and thus gives rise to consciousness. By far the 'contents' of the ego are more perceptual than thinking, because perceptions give rise to thinking.

In the context of neti-neti you are not your thoughts, you are not your perceptions and you not are you the frameworks that create your perceptions. You are not your consciounsess because your consciousness is an aspect/extension of Atman/self. Without those frameworks Atman is all alone in the night without even the light as company because the light is an archetype of the collective unconsciousness.

Originally Posted by Rah nam

the mind is an artificial construct to serve us during our third density experiences.

Where did that statement come from?

[lemex]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Where did that statement come from?

Many people feel they could be or act differently in the physical world and in a sense feel they do not act as soul would. Many say one thing and do another and say they don't know why. We look for our true being and talk about our spiritual true nature as real. Everything we do here is based being human, biochemical interaction happening within the body which drive the body which in the spirit will not exist. Iow soul will be (and therefore is) entirely different. It is artificial in the sense if there is our true nature as we talk about. As one is not the body consciousness is not the body. Think of it as our conflicts we are all aware of and that experience.

[lemex]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Hmmm, an energy structure that is in the brain/nervous system? You can't possibly know, understand and experience that, which is outside of yourself, thus is a man made imaginary concept.

This energy structure is infinite, how can that be in the body which if finite cannot hold it. Only the important stuff is. Consciousness is also infinite so it to has to extend.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by lemex

This energy structure is infinite, how can that be in the body which if finite cannot hold it. Only the important stuff is. Consciousness is also infinite so it to has to extend.

I do not have a problem with the energy being infinite. That energy is Atman/our higher self/soul/spirit and atman is both finite/duality and infinite/non-duality at the same time.

Atman is finite/dualty because atman is the body and atman is infinite/non-duality because atman literally is brahman in physical form.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Call it 'aspects of'/'extensions', call it 'contents', it's all much of a muchness and the end result is the same.

The sense of 'I am' (in any shape or form) doesn't arise from the self/Atman but from the ego/Ahamkara, it's the ego/Ahamkara that gives the self/Atman a sense of 'I am.' Your sense of 'I am' is not what you think you are, but the whole of your consciousness. What's not clear in either Jungian or Spirituality is what the self/Atman is conscious/aware of, because ego as consciousness/I am is an aspect/extension/content of self/Atman and not all of self/Atman. Self/Atman is beyond a sense of identity/individuation that is ego. Clinical ego-death occurs usually as a result of severe trauma, and what happens is the ego and all of its 'contents' collapse into the self, and often a period of not being able to function follows. Think of what happens when someone goes through emotional trauma, often they become disoriented and detached. That helps to understand the 'role' the ego can play.

What does self realisation actually mean? Because before that question can be answered there needs to be a clear understanding what the self actually is and without that it becomes meaningless - or what it means to an individual's ego.

And those unconscious aspects and contents are contained within the self/Atman so without an understanding of those aspects self-wareness isn't awareness of self at all. They balso give us a sense of 'I am' as much as the mental aspects because they contribute to our perceptions of who and what we are.

If a sense of I am arises from an aspect/extension of the Atman, is that not still the Atman or are those aspects/extensions of the Atman seperate? The thinking of 'I am' and the whole of your consciousness as 'I am" are two very different beasties, because the Jungian 'I am' is the whole of your perceptual reality - which includes the thought of 'I am' rather than being the thought of 'I am'. The thought of 'I am' is not the perception of 'I am'. The mind and its 'contents' is one of the aspects that creates the frameworks of our perceptual reality and thus gives rise to consciousness. By far the 'contents' of the ego are more perceptual than thinking, because perceptions give rise to thinking.

In the context of neti-neti you are not your thoughts, you are not your perceptions and you not are you the frameworks that create your perceptions. You are not your consciounsess because your consciousness is an aspect/extension of Atman/self. Without those frameworks Atman is all alone in the night without even the light as company because the light is an archetype of the collective unconsciousness.

Yup! Without ego/the sense of self/I am, atman/we will be mindless, meaning not have individuality, personality etc etc, hell, we might not even be conscious at all, so what's the point of talking smack about the ego/mind lol? There is no point.

Another way to look at the ego/mind is that the ego/mind is there to evolve the human race as a whole, not just one individual human at a time.

I think Contents of the mind and aspects/extensions of atman/brahman belong together for one to put the whole picture together. And separating the two can be misleading and cause confusion. The contents of most peoples minds, as you are aware, do not line up with their atman, thus are not aspects/extensions of atman/brahman, examples include hate, fear, negativity etc etc.

People's imagination is what causes/creates things that are not aspects/extensions of atman/brahman, and the imagination is what reverses atman's nature, the imagination is what turns atman's nature of love into hate/fear.

Yup, All the aspects/extensions of atman when all put together makes atman whole, and atman as a whole is what matters, not parts, aspects or extensions of atman thrown in here and there.

Yes, you are not your thoughts, you are atman however, if your thoughts do line up with your atman, then you are your thoughts because your thoughts are atman, people/gurus/teachers do not tell you the last part for some reason.

Edit: I should of had said that atman is not just or only the ego.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Yup! Without ego/the sense of self/I am, atman/we will be mindless, meaning not have individuality, personality etc etc, hell, we might not even be conscious at all, so what's the point of talking smack about the ego/mind lol? There is no point.

Another way to look at the ego/mind is that the ego/mind is there to evolve the human race as a whole, not just one individual human at a time.

I think Contents of the mind and aspects/extensions of atman/brahman belong together for one to put the whole picture together. And separating the two can be misleading and cause confusion. The contents of most peoples minds, as you are aware, do not line up with their atman, thus are not aspects/extensions of atman/brahman, examples include hate, fear, negativity etc etc.

People's imagination is what causes/creates things that are not aspects/extensions of atman/brahman, and the imagination is what reverses atman's nature, the imagination is what turns atman's nature of love into hate/fear.

Yup, All the aspects/extensions of atman when all put together makes atman whole, and atman as a whole is what matters, not parts, aspects or extensions of atman thrown in here and there.

Yes, you are not your thoughts, you are atman however, if your thoughts do line up with your atman, then you are your thoughts because your thoughts are atman, people/gurus/teachers do not tell you the last part for some reason.

Edit: I should of had said that atman is not just or only the ego.

I use atman and brahman interchangingly because underneath it all, brahman is atman and vice versa, however it does help alot to differentiate but not separate the 2 to go deeper under the surface.

[Rah nam]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Hmmm, an energy structure that is in the brain/nervous system? You can't possibly know, understand and experience that, which is outside of yourself, thus is a man made imaginary concept.

This is not what I said.