First we would have to come to an agreement on what the actual definition of 'Mind' is before I could even begin to explain in greater detail, and especially in relation to the origin of Mind, and/or, if the Mind is a human idea or some thing else.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:46 amCan you explain this in greater detail and especially in relation to the origin of Mind so is Mind a human idea or is it something elseken wrote:
The reason I say do not use words like myself is because the my implies an owner or another - in separation to some thing else. If you were to use the words My self or my Self then it is obvious to see the separation or detachment but when the word myself is used then there is no separation nor detachment at all. There is no obvious separation literally AND so there is no detachment in truth also. Myself and My self are obviously very different indeed. One way in for you to learn how to truly detach is by us looking at this in much greater detail if you are interested
My definition of Mind is some thing along the lines of a part of us that is completely open to any thing. You will have to let Me know if this definition is suffice or if you want to use another definition.
But in lesser detail the Mind IS always in existence, the human brain, however, obviously is not. The word 'Mind' is obviously a human idea, just like every other word that came into existence from human beings is a human idea. But just like all actual things, like the human brain, were in existence before the human idea of things came into existence, so was the Mind and the brain in existence prior to the human idea of them. The Mind, however, IS always in existence whereas the human brain came to be in existence whenever the species evolved, which we call human beings.
This is a bit like the chicken and the egg; what came first is solely depended upon the names, labels, or language we use. Obviously an egg was laid and just as obvious is an animal/bird came out of it. Was it a chicken egg that was laid or a chicken that came out of the egg? When definitions are agreed upon, and accepted, by every one, then the truth is revealed. If this is not yet understood, then imagine there are two dogs a labrador and a poodle, they mate and have puppies. To you, what came first the labradoodle (which could be seen as the chicken in the other example) or the puppies (the egg in the other example)?
Obviously at least two things come together in order to create some thing, an thing, and EVERY thing, but what those things are called is solely depended upon human beings and what language they use. Every animal, including the human animal, has come from another "type of" animal and/or changed into another "type of" animal, which is just evolution in process, but when a "type of" animal comes into existence is solely depended upon human beings interpretation and of course the language they use for this interpretation.
When we come to an interpretation, and agreement of, what the Mind is, then we can much better discuss this issue.
To Me, only when the definitions (the language) of the labels (the names) we are going to use is accepted and agreed upon, then we (both or all) look into things with much greater detail, exposing the truth of things.
Do you mean you can "never use them" now? Obviously, if you come to understand this, then you could use them.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:46 amI like the idea of complete detachment by using my Self or My self instead of myself but as I am too detached I can never use them
Imagine the label surreptitious57 is defined as self. There are as many selfs as there are human beings who have been labeled. A human body already has the label human body but to separate these bodies into individuals they are each given separate labels, that is names, surreptitious57, ken, and dontaskme, are just but some of those labels or names. I use a small s for these labeled separated, individual, and divided ones because they are NOT worthy of a big S like the united One of ALL of us is. This becomes self-explanatory later on.These labeled ones are the ones who become egotists, in the negative sense, and the one that most people like to become detached from. However, these egotists are people, themselves, and people can NOT become detached from people or themselves.
Just like ALL animals evolved from one "type of" animal and/or changed into another form of animal, the human being animal itself will keep evolving. There is NO stopping that change in form from happening. Just look at ALL animals, they came from some other thing that human beings nowadays do not label and call animals. Because there is a part in human beings that is completely open to any thing, then that has allowed them to look and see that even the earth itself and ALL things on it have come from some thing else, with the evolving process going on for as far as human beings can look and thus see, in the "past" and into the "future". When looking from this open to any thing point of view human beings, and thus people, could just as easily evolve into some other "type or" animal or form. Only when that happens people will be some thing else and thus only then be able to detach from the egotistical person. In other words when people discover who they really are, which for a hint is NOT a person nor a human being, then they can completely detach from that self, and discard them completely, in order to become, for all intention purposes what they are meant to BE.
There is some trouble in trying to explain this in greater detail because of what I am saying needs to be looked at from a completely open perspective, without any religious or previous teaching overtones to it. But because of the damage religion, or more correctly, the damage that misinterpretation of religions and the language from them that has already been done and caused, then being able to see what I am saying is NOT related to any thing previously taught nor learned is harder to see and follow. For you trying not to look at this from an already preconceived and/or preordained outcome, which was naturally taught to you, can be hard, especially if you are trying to compare this and put it into perspective with what you have already been taught and learned.
There are just as many different ways to explain this so that it will be fully understood as there are human beings with already taught thoughts and preconceptions. The reason I ask so much for clarifying questioning and to be challenge because it is only when I KNOW from what perspective FULLY where the person is coming from, that I am then able to fully explain all of this to that person.
I need to know from what perspective each person comes from to be able to put this into a language that they, them self, will fully understand. They need to be fully open and honest first in order for this to happen and that is why only from a truly Honest, Open and inquisitiveness, thus Wanting to learn person, HOW all meaningful answers are found, almost instantly.
Intelligence is related to how much one is able to learn, and to how much one is open to exactly determines how much one can and will learn. Looking from a truly open perspective just means looking from the Mind and because the Mind is always open to any thing and every thing, then every thing can be learned, understood, and reasoned.
Inquisitiveness just dictates how much one learns, understands, and reasons.
Intellect is related to how much one has already learned, understood, and reasoned. This grasping and obtaining information or knowledge is the brains job. You can become completely detached by looking from the truly open Mind always, or you can persist being attached to the already held opinions and beliefs, which have obviously come from the already obtained information and knowledge that the body has experienced.
I do not understand what is being said here. Not good enough for what?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:46 amThe best that I can do is listen to ken even if I do not agree or disagree with anything he says though that alone is not good enough