Recognizing the nature of mind

[VagalTone]

3 working hypotheses 1- The mind, experientally, has core features which we describe as the nature of mind 2-The nature of mind doesn't change whether you are awake or asleep, at least while you are alive 3-Recognizing the nature of mind entails natural lucidity, regardless of the consciousness state or content Possible conclusion: being able to recognize the nature of mind, and attaining stability and continuity in this recognition would be a very lucid and beneficial way to live, granting access to natural lucid dreaming

[InnerVision]

Judging from this post and your signature, I understand that you define awareness and our being, our mental existence, as the nature of mind? And by saying it does not change during our lives, you mean that even though not all of us have learned to access it while asleep, it is actually accesible in any state? And then your third hypothesis states that learning how to access this awareness, this mental existence and presence, while asleep, will lead to lucidity? Please tell me whether I have understood that correctly. If I have, I support your hypotheses and agree on your drawn conclusion. However, I do not yet see how this differs from the ideologies behind both modern-day awareness techniques and ancient meditation. Would you care to explain further?

[VagalTone]

Yes you have understood me i think. The recognition of the nature of mind is a pervasive theme on spirituality, but it's quite a neglected one i think. Most modern day pop meditation techniques operate on a dualistic context, with very much emphasis on states of consciousness, and not so much on insight about consciousness. But most ancient traditions deal with the nature of mind, specially and unfortunately after a long process of gradual practice and teaching that builds momentum and desire for the recognition, usually at an advanced level. Most of this remains to be studied and aplied on a secular level, mostly because of the secrecy of some teachings, and the dificulty to frame it in a nonreligious, nondogmatic level. Mindfulness is not a tool to realize the nature of mind. So, no, it's not widespread yet, although there is already scientific research going on. There's plenty of sources of study ( i am most familiar with the teachings of tulku Urgyen rinpoche and his sons) but unfortunately you have to be ready to swallow a little bit of strange jargon and need a little of guidance, probably in human form, to help you not to lose yourself on the subtleties of the process. It's a great risk if one misunderstands the nature of mind ! that's why the secrecy. Nevertheless, that's something we should all be familiar with i think.

[KonchogTashi]

There's plenty of sources of study ( i am most familiar with the teachings of tulku Urgyen rinpoche and his sons) but unfortunately you have to be ready to swallow a little bit of strange jargon and need a little of guidance, probably in human form, to help you not to lose yourself on the subtleties of the process. I was going to refer you to the Buddhist practice traditions of Mahamudra and Dzogchen, as the discovery and stabilization of the experience of abiding in the nature of mind is the central concern of both, but it sounds like you are already familiar with them as you mention Tulku Urgyen and family. They are, of course, peerless modern masters of these traditions.

[VagalTone]

I was going to refer you to the Buddhist practice traditions of Mahamudra and Dzogchen, as the discovery and stabilization of the experience of abiding in the nature of mind is the central concern of both, but it sounds like you are already familiar with them as you mention Tulku Urgyen and family. They are, of course, peerless modern masters of these traditions. Yeah, they have a¨particular genius at pointing the nature of mind ! Nice to hear from another adept

[IAmCoder]

A good exercise is to think what was different a second ago: your thoughts; a minute ago: feelings, sensations, the temperature; an hour ago: perhaps the room you are in; a day ago: the clothes you are wearing; a year ago: your routines and priorities; a decade ago: your body and beliefs. The only thing that remains constant is perception, or that part of the brain that observes all these things, even though the way that they are processed may change. Once you can "watch yourself as you watch" at will, a good trick to learn is to recognize when you stop being aware of it... that way you can go right back to watching yourself as you read this or type a response. And instead of actually typing, your primary focus should be on watching yourself.

[InnerVision]

That sounds very interesting! I cannot commit myself to learning more about this at this point of my life (as I feel that if I start I must continue; this is not something to do half-way). I think it is hard for most people to dedicate themselves to really dive into something as complex and abstract as this; even though it would be worth the effort, a lot of people just do not have the time to commit to this. Still it's a really interesting topic, even though I am not particularly spiritual. EDIT: A good exercise is to think what was different a second ago: your thoughts; a minute ago: feelings, sensations, the temperature; an hour ago: perhaps the room you are in; a day ago: the clothes you are wearing; a year ago: your routines and priorities; a decade ago: your body and beliefs. The only thing that remains constant is perception, or that part of the brain that observes all these things, even though the way that they are processed may change. Once you can "watch yourself as you watch" at will, a good trick to learn is to recognize when you stop being aware of it... that way you can go right back to watching yourself as you read this or type a response. And instead of actually typing, your primary focus should be on watching yourself. I agree on most of this, especially the part about watching yourself, but what I do not believe is that perception is a constant factor through our lives. I think perception is influenced by interpretation to a great extent; interpretation is formed by prior experiences (first- or second-hand), pure knowledge, upbringing and even personality. All these therefore influence perception to some extent. At least, that is how I feel about it; you could also take VagalTone's theses a step further and say that only accessibility of perception is influenced by interpretation. However, I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to say if that is plausible.

[VagalTone]

I understand InnerVision, spirituality can be so tricky. I hope one day, i think very soon, we will have a very pratical and scientific tested algorythm to make nonduality ( the goal of spirituality ) a living reality. IamCoder, you are ponting to the cognizant aspect of mind which is always on. You can recognize it while awake or asleep. Every experience you can recognize is manifestated by this feature of mind. The power to know is the cognizant nature of mind. Also called the clarity of mind. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ6nS-kkoyE

[VagalTone]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwh5_I4HdnA