Mind is an open secret
Like all definitions, this definition is characterized by its usefulness in a given context - in this case, the context of Buddhist views and goals. That’s why words can have more than one useful definition, of course. But this kind of definition of “mind” might strike many as unusual, so maybe it can overlap with other assumptions and definitions and possibly shake something up a little bit.
Obviously a definition of mind has been posted here, however, a thoughtful person might still ponder whether this definition of mind describes a distinguishable entity (the entity of mind) or whether it is merely a cobbled together concept formed from various discernible components related to a process of perception.
i think it’s a good definition, albeit only one of several. it does distinguish mind without seperating it from, or opposing it to, the rest of the world. it’s unique also because it incorporates the sense in which there is a collective mind that each individual participates in - something too many other definitions ignore.
what it does not do is explain what constitutes the part of mind that is not reflection of the other, though it posits that said part exists. so what is this part of the mind that makes up “I” as opposed to everything else? is it simply the reflex that seeks confirmation of one’s own existence within the other, or is there a substance to it, an actual identity?
Technically, a mind is anything that can categorize or conceptualize and remember perceptions based on presumed relevance. A mind is merely an epistemological mechanism. Fundamentally it doesn’t even have to do anything with the information in order to qualify. Of course it is a bit pointless if it doesn’t do something with it.
It is the effort of people trying to alter the categories within someone else’s mind that inspires them to proclaim that this or that category (such as “self”) does or doesn’t exist. What exists to a mind is whatever has relevance. The effort for many is to alter the categories of relevance such as to produce an altered external behavior. Such alterations can be positive for the individual or negative. The fate of societies hangs in the balance and thus politics and persuasion to adjust the minds of others never ends - “If everyone would just think more like THIS…”
In the case of fundamental Buddhism, the original incentive was merely to relieve any mind of its perceived misery. The primary technique is one of altering the very category known as “self”. The true aim is not to actually remove the self, but merely the false ego that instigates the suffering, much like a bad governor. If there is no self, it can’t be suffering, so remove the category of “self” from the assessment of your suffering (change your mind concerning your own existence) and you will be free.
^^ great post james
Great thread anon.
Is it? I would have thought it was the vehicle that made the difference. I would just like to see a little more contemporary thought go into this, everyone from atheists to religionist and spiritualists make these assumptions without any basis.
In contrast I could say; in druidry everything in nature has spirit and mind can transmigrate form, ergo there is nothing distinguishing us from bodies of water.
Two things; how far do we have to go down the evolutionary tree of life, to reach a kind of life which doesn’t associate with something other than itself? Trees for example.
Secondly, what is the very base of mind; perception appears to be a focussing of awareness, Buddha being [if that is the base] or such seems to be pure unfocused awareness.
Which brings us on to an interesting question concerning awareness and that base of mind; what we are saying is that ‘it is an awareness which is not aware of anything in particular’?
I’d like to think of what that is in terms of a body of water.
Emotions occur where sensory input, hormones etc are perceived. Take away their vehicle and what do we then have?
Ya and 72,000 energy meridians deriving from the chakra energy centres etc. 52 types of conceptions? shouldn’t we add a few zero’s to that. yes we do need to go into detail imho.
Is even the spirit a machine, or are we thinking about it with a machine?
Intelligent design, creationism? We are always assuming that, but is it true, isn’t there more a relationship between mind and the machine, such that neither can really take credit/be held responsible.
I still don’t think we have really demonstrated here that there is some “thing” called mind which exists. What are its components and qualities, what is its shape and form? Does it have inherent existence? Humans are quite good at creating all sorts of concepts. No one has yet convinced me yet that mind is not merely a concept. When folks refer to “the ineffable nature of mind,” do they do so because there is some “mind essence” that cannot easily be described or because there is actually no “mind essence” to describe? Unless an essence of mind can be demonstrated, my tendency is to believe the latter.
Perhaps, just as there is no “self” that can be said to possess inherent existence, there is also no mind that can be said to possess inherent existence. We appear to be aware of awareness. Perhaps it is awareness itself which has created such concepts/constructs as self, soul and mind as part of a process of MISPERCEPTION.
Perhaps mind is merely a construct based upon such misperception. This would make a certain amount of sense since it cannot be readily observed and appears to be arbitrarily defined.
“In general, the mind can be defined as an entity that has the nature of mere experience, that is, “clarity and knowing.” It is the knowing nature, or agency, that is called mind, and this is non-material. But within the category of mind there are also gross levels, such as our sensory perceptions, which cannot function or even come into being without depending on physical organs like our senses. And within the category of the sixth consciousness, the mental consciousness, there are various divisions, or types of mental consciousness that are heavily dependent upon the physiological basis, our brain, for their arising. These types of mind cannot be understood in isolation from their physiological bases.” -HHDL angelfire.com/mt/thubtentenzin/page5.html
Okay, under this definition, mind is a “non-material” “knowing agency.” So it sounds like it falls under the category of non-material things, which in English translates into HOCUS POCUS. Don’t believe me? Here’s the definition.
“hocus pocus - Unnecessarily mysterious or elaborate activity or talk to cover up a deception, magnify a simple purpose, etc.”
dictionary.reference.com/browse/hocus+pocus?s=t
Sounds to me like a Lamaist definition of mind fits this definition well. What I am aware of is that we are aware of awareness. Awareness seems to rely on perception. The process of perception regularly involves misperception. Perhaps notions of mind, soul and self are the byproduct of our awareness being influenced by misperception.
In terms of science and logic, I really don’t think it’s necessary to posit about consciousness in this day and age in terms of a “non-material” “knowing agency,” but then this is just my take on things. -mh
Part of the problem of imbuing humans with a mind and then further defining this mind as a “non-material” “knowing agency” as suggest by His Holiness the Dalai Lama is that it leads folks to believe in human/animal exceptionalism. However, if we look at what we can observe in lifeforms, what we observe isn’t beings with minds and no minds (using the above definition), what we observe are lifeforms which all exhibit awareness. Plants will track the sun for example, tube worms, a very “primitive” life form, have been shown to demonstrate pattern recognition (. In the context of traditional Buddhist thought, it may be that the view of human/animal exceptionalism was necessary in order to justify the traditional vegetarian diet which was a carry-over (like the concept of mind) from the predominant Indian Jain and Vedic traditions at the time of the historic Gotama buddha.
In fact, an argument could be made that the Buddha only spoke about mind in the context of his awakened state, because mind was already a highly developed concept that the spiritually elite of the time could readily understand. For example, a Buddhist familiar with Christianity can readily explain the compassionate teachings of Christ to a Christian using Christian nomenclature. It is entirely possible that Buddha taught about the concept of mind, not because he believed there was some “non-material” “knowing agency” called mind, but because his followers understood human consciousness in terms of this mind-concept and requested that he explain the “awakened state” in such terms.
Sorry if my posts are turning out to be diary of my thought-process on this topic (but I am doing research and taking into account what others have expressed in this thread). This is a topic I am “struggling” with at the moment. This being said, here is my latest on the topic. Thank you for your patience.
“The fundamental reality of mind is pure, non-dual awareness, rigpa. Its essence is one with the essence of all that exists.” - Geshe Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche,
This being the case, why do so many Buddhist texts refer to “mind,” the “nature of mind,” and the eternally frustrating “ineffable nature of mind”? I am aware of awareness. Mind, however, seems like a construct cobbled together from various aspects of the human cognitive process, the process of perception and awareness.
As far as I can tell, there is no actual entity called mind. So my question is, why don’t Buddhists just focus on awareness instead of mind which appears to be a concept?
My own theory is that because the theory of mind was well developed long before the birth of the historic Buddha, the spiritually elite of his time asked him to explain his awakened state in terms of “mind theory,” a theory of consciousness those of the Jain and Vedic traditions could easily understand. Consequently we have a legacy of teachings by the Tathagata on the topic of mind which we now just blindly follow without ever bothering to ask whether-or-not mind even exists.
It is when it is thinking that concept.
I don’t think there is a mind essence as such, more an emptiness or non essence.
In all honesty, can we not say a similar thing about mind if it is a physical thing? Try explaining it as such, start with colour is perceptual yet isn’t seen in the brain. How do you jump from particles to ideas, concepts, and visualisations, thought, imagination?
Nothing physical can be seen or touched, or accepted as physical until the mind declares that it is relevant to do so. Thus a “photon” is only a physical entity because a mind decided that it was an “it” of relevance and thus gave it a name. A mind is similar. It is an “it”, and object, merely because a mind declared that it is a relevant entity for understanding one’s environment.
Every physical entity is merely a functioning, a behavior. There is no truly solid anything doing that behavior. The entire universe is nothing but behavior upon behavior, affect upon affect, change upon changing (aka. “spirit”). The mind divides the behaviors/spirits into entities of relevance and names them, “a government”, “a misbehavior”, “an immorality”, “a wave”, “a particle”, “a dog”, “a person”, “a soul”. What we decide to name and declare as an entity, is merely what we perceive to be relevant behavior to us in a way separate from other behaviors.
Merely by the number of people speaking of “mind”, it is obviously relevant. It is defined and identified as the behavior of a brain (of some sort). Thus it exists as an entity just like any other.
I have several issues with that Buddhist description of mind, not massive issues, but, I don’t think I can really talk about them till I see what people think.
Bookmarked.
On this comment though, I think mind is difficult because it is clearly subjective, red is red, but how red, and how is it red; but an objective mind is something that is if I may, an archetype to which subjective minds approach. I think we can agree on what the qualia of red is, we may just differ on semantics due to subjectivity. The question is of course in determining how the subjective perceptions differ, and if we can meet at a qualitative description of colour, if not a precise quantitative one.
Helandhighwater
Well I think the objective mind denotes collocative information [patterns, waveforms], an archetype is along with conceptual info, the point where the objective meets the subjective, and hence mental qualia rather than physical objects and patterns thereof. There is I assume a language between these things, and consciousness pertains to all of that.
Naturally subjective perspective alone gives us a different view of things, a perspective from the given spatial locations upon and third party medium which is itself a spatial location ~ an object [and not of mind alone ~ ergo there is a physical world, it is not just mental].
If we all agree that a relatively long-wave is red and a shorter one purple, then we may meet both criteria. For me that brings us to another question;
We have three boxes, in one colour is photonic wavelengths, in the next it is electrical signals in our brain, in the final box colour is perceptual. So which one is colour in?
Most scientists would say the later, colour is perceptual as shown by a myriad of optical illusions [see horizon; do you see what I see on bbc I-player or you-tube].
Here I’ll reiterate one of my thought experiments;
“Viking thought experiment; if I take an axe and plunge it into a conscious living human head, then clasp my hands onto the split skull and open it up exposing the brains innards; would I see anything which resembles the mental experience? Would I literally see colours and if spliced carefully in some manner, would I see the image in our minds eye as if displayed on a monitor?
If I looked at it in every possible manner, through a microscope or via any instrumentation [remember that the colours on a screen are not in the brain, or that screen, but are in the mind], would I see what I am seeing? Would there be words in there, concepts, any quale et al?” - amorphos
Clearly colour and the image of the world you see, that you are seeing now, that is on your screen but not actually there, none of that is to be seen literally in the physical brain.
So what does that tell us? Is light a non-physical medium, not even of the brain?
isn’t the world/universe a set of emergent properties, some physical [momentum, centrifugal force, gravity, relative time] and some mental perhaps something other than both those classes.
isn’t philosophy fun now that it has regained prominence over science! I just had to get that one in sorry.
Nice, and no, it is not fun because it predominates over science, it’s fun because it’s just fun.
I agree though.
Hmnm I’ve read a few philosophers on Qualia, I Think none of them have it right. I think they are by a wide mile ahead of science. But that is probably not a revelation. 
Science has described what colour is in profound detail, but it has not described what it is in terms of perception. But what a boring field philosophy would be if it had all the answers. And science likewise.
I’d say science has described what the vehicle to our colour perception is, in great detail.
I love how subtle changes in context busts reality wide open. Somewhere along the line science will just have to accept that, it has been busted!
Isn’t “rock” also a cobbled together concept? My memories aren’t accessible to you; therefore, my mind is distinguishable from yours. But keep in mind this isn’t about what is ultimately the case - it is about how we see the world, how we function.
I think a definition of mind that substantializes any aspect of it flirts with being non-Buddhist by definition. But there are Buddhist traditions, including Trungpa Rinpoche’s, that do flirt in that way. Whereas, for instance, the Dalai Lama’s tradition emphasises that all phenomena are “empty of self”, Trungpa’s tradition also emphasizes that all phenomena are “empty of other”. I don’t think it’s about “an actual identity”, but there is a different connotation here to the teachings on emptiness. Whether we are talking about a rock or a mind, we could say of either, “it doesn’t exist”, which is shorthand for “it doesn’t exist in itself”, but there is a nihilistic ring to that statement that misses something. To say the rock, or mind, is “empty of other” is like saying “it is what it is”, or “it isn’t what it isn’t”.
I think there’s a lot to what you’re saying here.
That’s all I have time for at the moment.