What exactly does this mean?


I think I can chalk this up to a LONG line of Buddhist words and things that I don’t understand. But I don’t think it’s true, that everything is made of mind.

Hmmmmm, I mean OOhmmmmm
<p style=“text-align: center;”>MRI Data, Brain nerve Visualization</p>
<p style=“text-align: center;”>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_fdptHmpio</p>
<p style=“text-align: center;”>Visualization of MRI brain scan data from a single person, showing nerve fiber bundles near or feeding into part of the hippocampus.</p>
<p style=“text-align: center;”>Behold, our mindscape! ;- )</p>
<p style=“text-align: center;”>NIHOD - MRI brain nerves</p>
<p style=“text-align: center;”></p>

I don’t get it

You got to admit, cool pictures.

Xian, I don’t get the stone statue. ;- )

The words say “Everything’s Made of Mind” and I thought what could be better than taking a look at what the Mind is actually made of.



Watch the video, like Mike says, it’s way cool.

It’s a deepity: profound sounding words that have little or no meaning or value.

You could really reach and imagine that the author meant that we comprehend reality with minds, so everything we can sense is reconstructed in our minds. But I doubt they meant anything that mundane or meaningful. It’s more likely new-age mumbo-jumbo that the author has just parroted from some other mindless drone.

But I don’t really think that’s what he’s getting at with that.

Without any context, it’s hard to say what the author was trying to say. But I’ve heard enough of that sort of thing from people who themselves have no clue what it means, but merely say it to sound profound, to comfortably assume that the purpose is to give the warm fuzzies to his/her followers who will think it’s meaningful.

Lots of this stuff revolves around the definitions of the words. You’ll probably find that the author doesn’t use a scientific definition of ‘mind’, which makes the quote meaningless to anyone not using the exact definition the author has in mind.




Well it also talks about how he claims there is no “objects”, that what we assume when we experience and object is just the experience itself. He likens the body in the same way, as an experience and not really an object, calling that an unwarrented assumption.

“Contemporary cognitive science agrees. All experiences arise when consciousness is activated by a sense organ meeting an internal or external object. (Here, the mind itself functions like a sixth sense organ in relation to emotion and thought.) We assume we are “experiencing” the object that gave rise to the event in our consciousness. But the truth is that the only thing we can verify is the experience itself, however we may be misconstruing it. The idea of the body is like this. It is an idea based on unwarranted assumptions about the coherence of our conscious experience.”

I resist saying anything as trite as this, but as with a lot of popular philosophy it probably “means” whatever you THINK it means. :slight_smile:

I’m not sure how that responds to the quote I cited?

I believe Advocatus means that when there is no meaning in something, any meaning it has for you comes from you.

Those types of articles are actually meant to have no real meaning so that they can apply to any person and any situation and you can find whatever help or message you want it to have.

That type of writing is of no use to physicists, medical doctors, biologists, engineers, or anyone else who deals with reality. It is for those who need an emotional boost. And I don’t say any or this in a derogatory way: anyone who needs some inspiration or positivity should be able to find it wherever they can. Think of it like Dumbo’s feather, he thought he needed it to fly, therefore he did.

So enjoy it and benefit from it, just don’t expect me or anyone else to tell you there’s something there when, for us, there’s not.

oops, wrong thread

I’m sorry but you are clearly in the wrong here since this article is very clearly trying to say something.

This isn’t one of those vague stories which people can interpret however, this is a clear statement about the nature of reality and attempting to use science to support it.

Here are some nuggets of word salad I easily found in just the first few paragraphs of the article. If the author had a goal other than to spout nonsense, he failed miserably.

"They began by distinguishing two aspects of mind—an absolute aspect and a relative, phenomenal aspect. These, they said, are both identical and not identical. So mind (not only in the abstract, but also my mind, your mind, the mind of all sentient beings) is at the same time both transcendent and not."

“Mind equals reality equals impermanence equals eternity.”

“…not only mind in the abstract but the actual minds of sentient beings—‘includes within itself all states of being of the phenomenal world and the transcendent world.’”

" Mind and matter, space and time, animate and inanimate, imaginative and real—all are mind. Mind can be both absolute and phenomenal because it is empty of any hard and fast characteristics that could distinguish one thing from another. It is fluid. It neither exists nor doesn’t exist. So, strictly speaking, it isn’t impermanent. It is eternal."

I rest my case.

Maybe one has to be smoking the same, particularly potent strain of marijuana, as the author may have been, to make sense of it (at least until getting distracted and going for snacks).

My problem is the parts referencing science

Instead of spending time and energy trying to find meaning in words written by someone who is likely clueless about science, why don’t you read articles by people who actually know science.

There’s a ton of good science stuff on the internet. Go read it.

I don’t mean to say your questions about the article are not honest. But I, personally, see no value in looking for accidental meaning in a bunch of intentionally meaningless blathering. Accidental meaning has no value, so I don’t waste time looking for it.

“Mind equals reality equals impermanence equals eternity.”


groooooveeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy man

<i>I think therefore I am impermanence, or something like that.</i>

Except science stuff doesn’t answer the deepest questions and mysteries like who you really are. Some say you are the universe.