crazydiogene's picture

Average: 4.5 (2 votes)

Let there be no mind ,no attachment .Mind create attachment, illusion,sensuality .We find no mind when we dig our self because there is nothing only you reside in it.No finding,no seeking let dissolve in the wind like a fume,a fruitful smell fume.Let dissolve let dissolve our self.

divine intervention's picture

no mind


I also think there is already no mind, whenever we try to dig inside, we can't locate it, we only witness the impacts and so we assume there is some one integral entity that causes these impacts...

Therefore, I would say "let us realize that there is no mind..."

divine intervention | Sat, 08/09/2008 - 06:22
SriSriYogiBaba's picture


What will you use to realize that?

SriSriYogiBaba | Sat, 08/23/2008 - 16:04
Phroggy's picture

What will who use?.....

If, in fact, it's true that there is no mind, then what is it that realizes? Since mind is observed, 'something' is present to observe it. (Not to imply it's a doing thing)

Phroggy | Sat, 08/23/2008 - 18:25
SriSriYogiBaba's picture

A somewhat contradictory statement

Well, if in fact it's true that there is no mind, it couldn't possibly be observed, could it?

SriSriYogiBaba | Sat, 08/23/2008 - 20:23
Phroggy's picture

Right. Mind is a process

Right. Mind is a process that we conceptualize and give a name. 'Something' observes that apparent process.

Phroggy | Sun, 08/24/2008 - 00:21
SriSriYogiBaba's picture

that's more like it

Yes, I'm with you. And what a mystery that something is!
It's fun, after the initial overwhelming shock, awe and silence, to explore the dynamics of this mystery, knowing that there are no answers, just the relief of any concrete conclusions isn't it?
(By the way, my wife thinks that you are sweet by nature)

SriSriYogiBaba | Sun, 08/24/2008 - 06:51
Phroggy's picture

Wow! Such perceptive peeps here.

Objectively speaking, your wife is clearly a wonderful and perceptive person. Hehe.

Yes, it's a wonderful mystery that I'm a bit too interested in exploring, it seems. As you imply, there are no answers, not because we can't grasp the answers, but because we're inventing the questions along with everything else. That's part of the wonder.


Phroggy | Sun, 08/24/2008 - 18:11
divine intervention's picture

who said an action necessitates an actor?

I am not realizing it, it is just realized.

Whenever something happens, we are accustomed to the habit of pinpointing a subject who does the happening. A monolithic independant solid centered subject.

Look inside and see that there is nothing necessarily that does the action. Sounds are vibrating and perceived, images are seen and perceived etc.

There is no necessity for someone or something to hear, see and perceive in order for these to happen.

divine intervention | Sun, 08/24/2008 - 06:01
SriSriYogiBaba's picture

look inside what?

I've no idea who said that, it certainly wasn't me.
It seems like you have to "pinpoint a subject" in order to speak of this "I" who is apparently not realizing and who is also apparently looking inside itself.

SriSriYogiBaba | Sun, 08/24/2008 - 07:03
Omkaradatta's picture

Pinpointing a subject

> It seems like you have to "pinpoint a subject" in order
> to speak of this "I" who is apparently not realizing and
> who is also apparently looking inside itself.

Do you have to pinpoint a subject (or object) in order to speak of purple-spotted elephants? ;-).

Omkaradatta | Mon, 08/25/2008 - 21:27