-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does Theory of Mind Explain the Mystic's God?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
chinu
chinu
Hi Chinu.
Afraid I don't agree.Language/symbols is the base in my mind.
Don't you need "Time" to create anything even in your "Mind" ?
_/\_
Chinu
Hi
Assuming that 'Theory of Mind' adequately explains the process of belief in general (which I agree to wholeheartedly since Mind is nothing but a bundle of thoughts), will not the difference between Mystic and non-Mystic be understood as another such theory? And what about the 'Theory of Mind' itself?
Often, and very often, science is a big religion.
That said, there is one statement in scripture: 'mano vritti jnanam', which means that the Truth cannot be realized at all unless there is mental action.
As pointed out by chinu, under certain conditions, the knowledge begins to surface in mind that the present creation is supported by actions of the inner instrument called brain. The mind ( the being) then, discarding the external creation, turns inward and eventually finds its own source. So, action of mind-senses directed 'without' is one side of the picture and the action of the mind directed 'within' is another.
Again, as chinu said, the latter action depends on certain conditions -- one of which is, IMO, intense pain or agony due to clinging to external objects. There is a verse in an upanishad that one is sure to die when anything other than the true Self is desired more than the true Self.
The above description is devoid of any theory but is the direct experience of mystics.
...
Last edited:
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Don't you need "Time" to create anything even in your "Mind" ?
_/\_
Chinu
Language is the father of both. Before anything there is language. WIthout language there is nothing. It (language) is the beginning and the end. Without language there is no time.
Without language when a tree falls in the forest there is no sound.
chinu
chinu
You need "time" to create a "thing" in Mind, but without symbols/language, there is no "time", no "thing", no "mind", and not even "symbols/language" to "grab" (and no "grab").
:flirt:
Once there was a fight between word and intellect. None could convince the other as to who was greater so they both went to the Person. The word being vocal complained to Person and asked who was greater. Purusha (Person) was in a bind but had to speak the truth. It said: Intellect. Without intellect, concept will not rise and the word will not rise. The Word was crestfallen and in anger cursed Person "No one will sing for you. No vocal mantra will reach you".
Thereafter, the Person is known in silence of word and mind.
...
"The moment you come to a conclusion as to what intelligence is, you cease to be intelligent." (Krishnamurti) To carry the fight reference, and in line with your analogy, this is how I see Intellect: as the capacity to pin down Word.
(As opposed to allowing Word its freedom.)
"The moment you come to a conclusion as to what intelligence is, you cease to be intelligent." (Krishnamurti) To carry the fight reference, and in line with your analogy, this is how I see Intellect: as the capacity to pin down Word.
(As opposed to allowing Word its freedom.)
The fight is still going on.I agree but it is double edged -- what you said was also guided by intellect.
...
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Assuming Theory of Mind explains belief god, then it would seem that belief in all gods would be explained by it. Mystics may apply a different lexicon and set of rituals to their "gods," but the underlying psychological structure of god seems similar. Also, considering that there are different types of minds, the results of the construction and interpretation of other minds would be highly dependent on an individual's own state of mind and personality. The more vague and nebulous communications and perspectives of many mystics would, if Theory of Mind applied, result in a more vague and nebulous image of god.
Agreed.
I agree but it is double edged -- what you said was also guided by intellect.
...
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
There was no need for them to fight. The question is which came first. I believe it was word. Without words (or symbols) there isn't mind as we know it.
Symbols constitute mind. But Mind is reflection of the subject (person), which in hinduism, is considered as existence, intelligence, and bliss. So, we are actually not comparing word and mind, both of which do not exist in absence of the person, who is defined as the Seer/Knower rooted in consciousness.
You will note that the fight was between intellect and word -- both of the person. And Mind is both concept and word together.
...
Last edited:
chinu
chinu
Willamana ji, "Time" is not a thing, "Time" comes automatically inbetween when anything is created.
So, Insted of : You need "time" to create a "thing" in Mind,
In spiritual language it is said as: You "time-ed" to create a "thing" in Mind,
_/\_
Chinu
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Time is a property of things. Things have being and location which, when combined with memory, creates motion. Time is the experience of the relative motion of things. The motion of a thing is measured by relation to the motion of other things.
Thus, for motion, there must first be things that move. And for things, there must first by symbolic thought by which things have being.
Thought leads to the experience of things, memories of things lead to the experience of motion, and the experience of motion leads to the experience of time.
Last edited:
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
It explains the experiences that get interpreted as "notions of god."
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
One caveat. If you conceive of "time" as memory itself, then yes, "time" would be a necessary condition for ordered thought and would precede being. But this is not the function the word "time" normally serves. Ordinarily time signifies information about the motion of things relative to the motion of other things as observed through memory.doppelgänger;2379625 said: