1. 分析 Part M

 1. 分析

頭腦使用分析的能力來組織其內容。內容根據其自我引用標準進行組織。這些標準是建立思維的基本思想。我們在沙子上建造了房屋。29 然而，頭腦的分析功能嘗試去理解記憶，就像把磐石堆成一堵牆一樣。它使用基本邏輯。記憶被洗牌成模式，這些模式似乎與潛在的固定觀念有關，具有合理的敘事。（其基本邏輯的一個例子可以在第4章討論的大腦建立的連接中看到。

記憶也被分為意義組。比如說，關於人們善良的記憶被歸入這一類，如果主流態度是人們不好，那麼他們往往會在潛意識中被



抵制和歸檔。通過這種方式，我們為自己構建了宏大的敘事，並有大量支援它們的證據支持它們。我們對不符合我們主導態度的事物有相應的潛意識或半意識記憶。



2. 決策

一旦想法、態度和記憶被思維的分析方面洗牌成敘事，決策部分就會選擇這些故事中的哪些是“真實的”，以便人們能夠以合理連貫和一致的方式行事。在梵文中，這是心中的「佛」部分。佛陀決定什麼是正確的，並選擇適合所選故事的印象。

佛陀決定哪些可能的故事是真實的方式，取決於其本身就是記憶和想法的基本原則。然而，這些記憶埋藏在腦海中，比那些在表面上被洗牌成意義結構的記憶更深。他們通常是潛意識的，所以他們感覺像是確鑿的事實;通常這些是植入物，下面是存在的基本狀態。當一個人對什麼是正確的有強烈的內在感覺時，有些人稱之為他們的良心或直覺，但實際上這通常是頭腦的決策部分，就像一個內心的判斷者。實際上，沒有什麼是絕對對錯的;事情只有與根深蒂固的想法有關，才是對與錯。

頭腦決策部分的核心是我們認為是個性的方面。



3.人格/自我 心靈的第四個動作是弗洛德所說的“自我

”，伯納更喜歡稱之為“人格”。這是頭腦中認為我們具有特定性格的部分：“我就是這樣”或“我就是那樣”，“我是一個好人”，“我是一個好人”，“我是那種與他人一起努力的人”，“我是那種像這樣說的人”，等等。

帕坦伽利寫道，人格在於錯誤地將個人的力量與感知


的力量組合
成一個單一的自我概念。30 換句話說，人格是沒有看到自己和他人心靈的個別和短暫方面之間的差異。我們陷入了錯誤當我們把真實的自我和偶然的方面和記憶混為一談時，我們就是我們的個性，不僅在尊重我們自己的情況下，而且在以這種方式看待他人（包括動物）的情況下也是如此。有時甚至更容易從我們與動物相處的方式中看到這一點。有時，當貓或狗在地毯上撒尿時，將諸如怨恨和報復之類的情緒歸因於它們是多麼容易，而它們所做的只是一隻未經足夠訓練的正常貓或狗。這些是我們自己的情緒和行為，投射到動物身上。我們將生物與我們自己的個性混為一談。

不以我們期望被當作個體對待的方式對待他人和動物，就是不理解現實。31 真正有價值的，只有對個人重要的東西。32 這與對個性重要的東西不同。人格可能會被語氣冒犯，可能會發現其他人對他們的焦慮敏感很重要，可能會期望其他人同情他們的受害者狀態。個人不會將這些想法投射到他人身上，而是希望通過這些偶然性進行聯繫和聯繫，而不管這些偶然性如何。

帕坦伽利進一步斷言，心靈“是由利己主義創造的”。33

心靈的可能性...是利己主義的一種功能...因此，利己主義是允許將自然特徵轉化為思想的錯誤。利己主義就像普魯薩（人或個人）與自然之間的介面......這是一個錯誤，既發生在purusa的一面，也發生在構成心靈的自然品質的一面。34

、人格是我們常常感到最認同的心靈部分，所以我們抗拒失去它，這是可以理解的，但這不是我們真正的身份。35 我們不會像某些人所害怕的那樣，因為失去人格而變得沒有個性和遲鈍。相反，如果我們從固定的人格狀態中解放出來，我們將更輕，對內在狀態的反應更少，並且更自由地從真實的自我中行動。


意識
我們似乎受制於我們的思想，直到我們清楚地看到
我們與他們不同。36 但是頭腦無法知道這一點，因為它無法認識自己。正如帕坦伽利所說，“心態不是自我照亮的，而是通過[對人]的可知性來認識的。37 只有個人才能知道心。但個人和世界，包括心靈，是共生關係的。意識不能僅僅通過自己的機制來認識自己，而必須有一面鏡子。沒有心靈的鏡子，個人就無法認識自己。

我們對心智的內容和運作有不同程度的意識。我們常常或多或少地意識到心靈的表面運作和我們的直接動機。但在其他時候，我們可能完全沒有意識，比如當我們喝醉了，以後無法回憶起我們做了什麼。

我們對思想內容的意識程度存在很大差異，即使是在同一個人中也是如此;他們可能對自己在一個領域的動機和影響有深刻的理解，但由於特殊的、深刻的態度，他們在其他領域無意識地行事。

意識不是頭腦的一部分，但可以應用於頭腦的想法對大多數人來說很容易為自己建立。例如，這可以在練習正念冥想時體驗到。在這裡，一個人可以學會從遠處觀察頭腦。因此，儘管我們通常對自己的思想有強烈的認同感，但只要我們發展了觀察內在景觀的能力，我們就可以理解這種區別。

頭腦本身不是有意識的，也沒有意識或意識。但是頭腦可以通過將意識照射到它上面來感知。這種觀察心靈的經驗使許多人得出結論，意識必須與個體相同。這更接近事實，但也不完全是事實。個體實際上是具有意識能力的人，但它並不等同於意識。

能夠或多或少地意識到心的人是個人。

在這一點上經常存在混淆，因為我們中的任何人都有將這些元素分離



出來並親眼看到差異的經驗是相當不尋常的。大多數人都能理解意識和心靈中可變的東西之間的區別，但是，因為我們很少超越那個感知階段，我們傾向於將意識和個體放在一起，並假設意識是個體。人們常說，“觀察者”是個人。這更接近真相，但觀察者最終是個人的想法;它不是個人的實相。個人不是一個想法。對你真實身份的體驗38揭示了個人不是一個想法。

像這樣分解個人、意識和思想的一個含義是，它可以使我們更準確地理解自己並提供説明。意識可以由個人應用於頭腦。當我們知道這一點時，我們就不再與我們的思想如此緊密地認同，個人可以開始脫穎而出。一個人可以越來越多地從他們的真實身份而不是從頭腦的戲劇中採取行動。在提供説明時，我們也不太可能被別人的思想所迷惑;這對其他人有很大説明。



意識和潛意識 意識是個人的一種能力，不同於頭腦中的意識和潛意識。39 心靈中的意識和潛意識是弗洛德最初提出的一種結構上的區別，試圖理解心靈的運作方式。它過去和現在都是一個非常有影響力的模式，使我們能夠有效地談論驅動我們的動機和議程，但我們不知道。它為我們提供了解釋和處理創傷影響的語言和方法，這些創傷在接近心理困擾和異常行為方面取得了巨大進步。

這裏討論的模型是不同的，因為這裡沒有事實上的無意識頭腦。心靈可以被比作一個盒子，盒子裡面是一條浮動線，將其分為有意識和潛意識。在任何給定的時刻，一些f 個人很容易獲得，其中一些則不然。如果分界線一直向下延伸到底部，那麼一切都是有意識的。這並不意味著一切都總是在我們的意


識中，而是它可以很容易地被召喚並可供個人使用。
然而，許多人在靠近頂部的地方操作線條，在這種情況下，幾乎所有東西都是無意識的。

有意識的頭腦是一個人很容易接觸到的部分，個人可以很容易地在上面發光。有一個灰色地帶，通過一點努力，一個人可以將一些通常是潛意識的東西帶入意識。

原則上，我們可以把一切都帶入有意識的頭腦，並且不會有分界線。一個沒有潛意識的人會意識到他們所有的動機。帕坦伽利還斷言，將潛意識的驅動力、態度和想法帶到有意識的頭腦中可以化解它們，這樣我們就可以觀察它們，而不是被它們支配。40 這一直是大多數心理治療的重要組成部分，並且將繼續如此。然而，這並不意味著這樣的人一定沒有其異常行為或無反應。唉，還有其他強有力的理由讓我們不放棄我們扭曲的想法和行為，即使我們知道它們。


理性的座位 頭腦不是理性的

座位，儘管當我們使用“頭腦”這個詞時，我們經常以某種方式指理性。混亂的出現，至少部分是因為頭腦利用推理能力來分類其內容。我們的語言和觀念傳統使我們很難理解這一點，但必須仔細區分思維和推理能力。

理性是一種感知和區分事物的能力。我們能區分得越好，我們的推理能力就越強。頭腦採用基本的推理來分類和排列內容，但它不是區分能力的來源。如果某人不講道理，我們傾向於認為他們是“無意識的”，但是，在這個模型中，我們可以在沒有頭腦的情況下更清楚地感知現實和推理。例如，先入為主的想法，即心靈的東西，是清晰感知的障礙。思想就像理性發揮作用的基石。固定的想法是頭腦的，但理性不是。 人們在這裡經常問的問題是，我們是否需要頭腦來思考。



大多數情況下，我們這樣做，因為我們所做的大部分思維都是根據其他思想的層次結構重新排列思想;我們腦海中發生的大部分事情從根本上說都是神經質的。我們有清晰的感知，沒有神經質的頭腦活動。然而，只要想法不固定，它們就對我們有用。

一旦我們明白心不是理性的所在地，我們就可以批判性地看待它，而不必擔心我們會因此而失去理性。失去理智並不等同於失去理智;前者是可取的，後者不是這樣。理解了這一點，與頭腦打交道變得更容易，而不是威脅。


個人與思想

思想和思想不是一回事。當我們談論處理頭腦到處於一種無心的狀態時，對許多人來說，這聽起來像是一個令人擔憂和沒有吸引力的命題。我們可能認為自己沒有頭腦，無法思考。但這不是所提議的。

這裡重要的是再次審視心智和思維之間的區別。這是我們正在尋找溶解方法的思想。然而，只要個人以任何方式認同時間和空間，即在我們目前看到的世界中運作，從事任務和參與生活，那麼我們確實需要工具來運作。

個人利用想法。思想被用來讓我們從A到B，做飯，購物以及日常生活中的所有其他任務和互動。這些想法不是問題。它們可以被視為普通頭腦的運作。它們與“頭腦”的不同之處在於它們不是固定的。正是固定的想法和態度成為一個問題，並且構成了這裏定義的思想。這些是我們沒有意識到的想法，也是我們的動力。

我們無法阻止想法來來去去，除非我們在處理頭腦方面非常進步。但我們可以淡化



它們，而不是被它們所支配。我們也可以選擇它們並使用它們與世界互動。

總之，消解心並不意味著失去思考的能力。擁有頭腦會妨礙人們看到事物的本來面目。


成為受害者 當思想形成時，我們進入的狀態最終總是受害者

狀態。這是未能為我們在世界上的情況承擔責任。一旦我們成為“我”，我們也創造了“你”。為了保持這種二元性，在基本的定義層面上，我必須是對的，而你必須是錯的。

判斷往往是受害者狀態。當然，並非所有類型的判斷都會產生受害者身份。為了裝飾的目的，我可能會判斷這個南瓜比那個南瓜更好。辨別不是受害者狀態，但基於對現實的扭曲看法的判斷才是。這解釋了所有的態度，包括那些似乎傷害他人的態度，例如欺淩。我們仍然讓別人犯錯，在這個敘事中，我們的行為是他們的錯，就像“看看你讓我做了什麼”一樣。 自我辯護的元素總是存在的;它使我們成為戲劇的明星和受害者。受害者的對立面，即加害者，在操作中可能更容易看到，因為它通常是活躍和侵略性的，但兩者都始終存在。

在我們完全看到我們的機構在世界上的情況之前，我們將在某種程度上處於受害者狀態。受害者狀態使我們對他人保持幻覺，並將這種幻覺投射到他們身上。我們正在傷害他人，這意味著沒有看到他們的真實面目，因此沒有善待他們。我們之所以造成傷害，是因為我們不允許他人保持真實的狀態，並或多或少地將他們視為我們世界中的物體。當我們陷入心靈的幻覺時，我們不斷地抗拒並試圖強迫別人進入我們的故事已經彌補了他們和我們。這個故事是一個關於別人是什麼樣的以及他們如何對待我們的神話。我們發現很困難讓別人真正成為他們自己和自由，因為這意味著放棄我們



創造的關於他們的錯誤觀念。我們認為，如果我們放棄這一點，我們也會失去他們。

例如，如果瑪律科姆為了應對特定情況而退出人們，那麼退出實際上是一種溝通。但它是扭曲的。瑪律科姆可能認為他的資訊響亮而清晰。讓我們說退出實際上轉化為「不要離開我！在他的潛意識中，他認為退縮是傳達資訊，但與他交流的人只是不明白，反常。所以在瑪律科姆的敘述中，另一個人是錯誤的，這成為態度的重點。歪曲的信息不僅僅是一個孤立的事實，它有一個目的。它旨在保持局勢的持續發展。這是一種溝通，但它陷入了迴圈，只要態度在運行，它就永遠不會被傳遞或接收。所以它一直在繼續。

這種態度和相關的行為旨在重現使它無法一遍又一遍地令人滿意地傳達的情況。這就像在說，『好吧，我在這裡瘋狂地交流，但你不明白我的意思，所以你錯了，我是對的，這都是你的錯，所以我要撤回我的愛。

然而，例如，如果瑪律科姆意識到自己在做什麼，並且更擅長直接溝通而不是退縮，他將不得不放棄自己是對而其他人是錯的敘述。溝通是改變的關鍵，但深度變革並不是一般的改善溝通;它是關於找到並製作最初引發態度的原始溝通。這就是為什麼移情對話通常不會帶來深刻的變化。它們不夠具體。如果他當時要看到他正在做的事情，包括信息，那麼他就不需要他功能失調的行為習慣了。他會溝通，別人會得到，或者不明白，他不需要退出。保持這種行為的唯一原因是，如果他沒有完全理解它，或者有其他一些投資來維持這種狀態，或者他仍然投資於一個人獲得溝通，但那個人拒絕它。

關鍵點

◉ 心靈可以映射。

◉ 第一層，外層由休閒連接體驗組成。

◉ 第二層，更固定和更深層次由情感創傷經歷組成。

◉ 第三層由身體創傷經歷組成。

◉ 第四層由植入物組成。

◉ 第五層由存在的基本狀態組成。

◉ 心靈的核心是由存在與不存在的二元論組成的。

◉ 心靈有四種功能：

·記憶

·分析

·決策 <B1160>
·個性。

◉ 個人具有意識的屬性;頭腦沒有自己的意識。

◉ 心靈的內容可以是有意識的，也可以是潛意識的。

◉ 當我們沒有頭腦時，我們仍然可以思考。

◉ 心靈是一種受害者狀態。




1. Analysis

The mind uses the capacity to analyse with the specific purpose of organising its content. Content is organised according to its self- referential criteria. These criteria are the basic ideas on which the mind is built. We have built our houses on sand.29 The analytical function of the mind, however, tries to make sense of memories like building blocks being made into a wall. It uses basic logic. Memories are shuffied into patterns that seem to have plausible narrative in relation to the underlying fixed ideas. (An example of its basic logic can be seen in the connections the mind makes as discussed in Chapter 4.)

Memories are categorised into meaning groups as well. Memories, say, of people being nice are sorted into that category and, if the dominant attitude is that people are bad, then they will tend to be



resisted and filed away in the subconscious mind. In this way we build grand narratives for ourselves with heaps of supportive evidence backing them up. We have corresponding heaps of subconscious or semi-conscious memories of things that do not fit with our dominant attitudes.



2. Decision-making

Once ideas, attitudes and memories have been shuffied into narratives by the analytical aspect of the mind, the decision-making part then chooses which of these stories are ‘true’ so that the person can act in a reasonably coherent and consistent manner. In Sanskrit this is the ‘buddhi’ part of the mind. The buddhi decides what is correct and chooses the impressions that fit with that chosen story.

The way the buddhi decides which possible stories are true depends on underlying principles that are themselves memories and ideas. These memories, however, are buried deeper in the mind than those that are being shuffied around on the surface into meaning structures. They are usually subconscious, so they feel like solid facts; often these are implants and, below that, the basic states of being. When a person has a strong inner sense about what is right, some call this their conscience or gut feeling, but in fact this is usually the decision-making part of the mind which acts like an inner judge. In reality, nothing is absolutely right or wrong; things are only right and wrong in relation to deeply held ideas.

At the heart of the decision-making part of the mind is the aspect we think of as our personality.



3. Personality/ego

The fourth action of the mind is what Freud called ‘ego’ and Berner preferred to call ‘personality’. This is the part of the mind that thinks of us as having a particular character: ‘I’m like this’ or ‘I’m like that,’ ‘I’m a nice person,’ ‘I’m a good person,’ ‘I’m the kind of person who makes an effort with others,’ ‘I’m the kind of person who says it like it is,’ and so on.

Patanjali wrote that personality consists in erroneously putting together the power of the individual with the powers of perception



into a single idea of a self.30 In other words, personality is the failure to see the difference between the individual and transitory aspects of the mind in oneself and others. We fall into the mistake of thinking we are our personality when we confuse our true self with our contingent aspects and memories, not just with respect to ourselves but also in the case of seeing others in this way, including animals. It might even be easier sometimes to see this in the way we are with animals. How easy it is, sometimes, to attribute emotions such as spite and revenge to a cat or dog when they pee on the carpet, when all they are doing is being a normal cat or dog who has not been trained well enough. These are our own emotions and behaviours, projected onto the animal. We are confusing the creature with our own personality.

To fail to treat other people and animals in the way we expect to be treated as individuals is to fail to understand reality.31 What is truly valuable is only that which is important to individuals.32 This is not the same as what is important to the personality. The personality may be offended by a tone of voice, may find it important that others be sensitive to their anxieties, may expect others to sympathise with their victim state. The individual does not project such ideas onto others, but wants to connect and relate through and regardless of these contingencies.

Patanjali goes further to assert that the mind ‘is created from egotism alone’.33

The very possibility of a mind…is a function of egotism… Egotism thus is the error that allows features of Nature to be converted into minds. Egotism is like the interface between the purusa [person or individual] and Nature… It is an error that occurs both on the side of purusa and on the side of the natural qualities that constitute the mind.34

The personality is the part of the mind we often feel most identified with, so we are understandably resistant to losing it, but it is not who we actually are.35 We will not, as some fear, become personality-free and dull by losing it. On the contrary, we will be lighter, less reactive to our inner states and freer to act from our true self if we liberate ourselves from our fixed personality states.


Consciousness

We seem to be at the mercy of our minds until we see clearly that we are not identical with them.36 But the mind cannot know this because it cannot know itself. As Patanjali says, ‘Mentality is not self-illuminating, but it is known by its knowability [to the person].’37 Only the individual can know the mind. But the individual and the world, including the mind, are in a symbiotic relationship. Consciousness cannot know itself simply through its own mechanisms but must have a mirror. The individual cannot know itself without the mirror of the mind.

We have different degrees of consciousness of the content and workings of the mind. We are often more or less aware of the surface workings of the mind and our immediate motives. But there are other times when we might be completely unconscious, such as when we are drunk and cannot later recall what we did.

There are wide variations in how conscious we are of the content of our minds, even within the same person; they may have a deep understanding of their motivations and influences in one area but be acting unconsciously in other areas due to particular, deep attitudes.

The idea that consciousness is not part of the mind but can be applied to the mind is easy enough for most people to establish for themselves. For instance, this can be experienced in practising mindfulness meditation. In this a person can learn to observe the mind from a distance. So, although we are usually strongly identified with our minds, we can understand this distinction as long as we have developed the capacity to observe the inner landscape.

The mind is not itself conscious and does not have consciousness or awareness. But the mind can be perceived through shining consciousness onto it. This experience of observing the mind has led many people to the conclusion that consciousness must be identical with the individual. This is closer to the truth but not exactly the case either. The individual is in fact the one who has the capacity for consciousness, but it is not identical with consciousness.

The one who can be more or less conscious of the mind is the individual.

There is often confusion on this point because it is fairly unusual for any of us to have had the experience for ourselves of separating



these elements out and seeing the differences first hand. Most people can get the difference between consciousness and the changeable stuff of the mind but, because we so rarely get beyond that stage of perception, we tend to put consciousness and the individual together and suppose that the consciousness is the individual. It is often said that the ‘observer’ is the individual. This is closer still to the truth, but the observer is, finally, an idea of the individual; it is not the reality of the individual. The individual is not an idea. An experience of who you really are38 reveals that the individual is not an idea.

An implication of breaking down the individual, consciousness and the mind like this is that it can enable us to be more precise in understanding ourselves and giving help. Consciousness can be applied to the mind by the individual. When we know this, then we are no longer so closely identified with our minds and the individual can begin to come to the fore. A person can increasingly act from who they really are and not from the dramas of the mind. In giving help, we are also less likely to be beguiled by other people’s minds; this helps others tremendously.



The conscious and subconscious mind Consciousness, a capacity of the individual, is different from what is conscious and subconscious in the mind.39 The conscious and subconscious in the mind is a structural distinction originally made by Freud as a way of trying to understand the way the psyche works. It was and is a hugely influential model and has allowed us to talk usefully about motivations and agendas that drive us, but of which we are not aware. It has given us language and methodologies for explaining and dealing with the effects of trauma that have seen huge strides forward in approaching psychological distress and aberrant behaviour.

The model discussed here is different, for here there is no de facto unconscious mind. The mind can be likened instead to one box, inside of which is a floating line that divides it into conscious and subconscious. At any given moment, some of it is easily available to the individual and some of it is not. If the dividing line goes right down to the bottom, then everything is conscious. That does not mean that



everything is always in our awareness, but that it can be easily called up and be available to the individual. Many people, however, operate with the line somewhere close to the top, in a situation in which nearly everything is unconscious.

The conscious mind is that part that is easily accessible to a person and upon which an individual can readily shine consciousness. There is a grey area where, with a bit of effort, a person can bring something into the conscious mind that is usually subconscious.

In principle we could bring everything into the conscious mind and there would be no dividing line. A person with no subconscious mind would be aware of all their motives. Patanjali also asserts that bringing subconscious drives, attitudes and ideas to the conscious mind defuses them so we can observe them rather than being ruled by them.40 This has been a large and important part of most psychotherapies and continues to be so. That does not mean, however, that such a person would necessarily be free of their aberrant behaviour or non-reactive. There are, alas, other powerful reasons why we do not let go of our distorted ideas and behaviours, even when we know about them.


The seat of reason

The mind is not the seat of reason, even though, when we use the word ‘mind’, we are often referring to reason in some way. The confusion comes, at least in part, because the mind makes use of the reasoning capacity to sort its contents. Our language and conceptual traditions make it difficult to appreciate this, but mind and the capacity to reason must be carefully differentiated.

Reason is an ability to perceive and differentiate between things. The better we can differentiate, the better our reasoning powers will be. The mind employs basic reasoning to sort and arrange content, but it is not the source of the ability to differentiate. We tend to think of someone as ‘mindless’ if they are unreasoning but, in this model, we can perceive reality and reason more clearly without the mind. For example, preconceived ideas, which are the stuff of mind, are barriers to clear perception. Ideas are like the building blocks with which reason plays. Fixed ideas are of the mind, but reason is not.



The question people tend to ask here is whether or not we need the mind in order to think. Mostly we do, because the majority of the thinking we do is engaged in rearranging ideas according to hierarchies of other ideas; most of what goes on in our minds is fundamentally neurotic. We have clear perception without the neurotic activity of mind. Ideas, however, are useful to us just as long as they do not become fixed.

Once we understand that the mind is not the seat of reason, we can afford to look at it critically, without fear we will lose our reason by doing so. Losing our mind is not the same as losing our reason; the former is desirable, the latter not so. Understanding this, dealing with the mind becomes easier and is not a threat.


The individual and thought

Thoughts and mind are not the same thing. When we talk about dealing with the mind to the point of being in a state of no-mind, this can sound, to many people, like an alarming and unattractive proposition. We might have an image of ourselves as mindless, unable to think. But this is not what is being proposed.

It is important here to look again at the distinction between mind and thinking. It is the mind we are looking for ways to dissolve. However, as long as the individual is in any way identified with time and space, that is, operating in the world as we currently see it and engaging in tasks and participating in life, then we do need tools with which to operate.

The individual makes use of ideas. Thoughts are employed to get us from A to B, to cook dinner, to do the shopping and all the other tasks and interactions of daily life. These thoughts are not a problem. They can be seen as the operation of the ordinary mind. What makes them different from ‘mind’ is that they are not fixed. It is the fixed ideas and attitudes that become a problem and are what make up the mind as defined here. These are the ideas we are unconscious of and which drive us.

We cannot stop ideas from coming and going, or not unless we are very advanced in dealing with the mind. But we can de-emphasise



them and not be run by them. We can also choose them and use them in interacting with the world.

In summary, dissolving the mind does not mean losing our capacity to think. Having a mind gets in the way of seeing things as they really are.


Going victim

The state we go into when the mind comes into being is always, ultimately, a victim state. It is a failure to take responsibility for how we are in the world. As soon as we become ‘I’, we also create ‘you’. To maintain this duality, I must be right and you must be wrong at a basic level of definition.

Judgement is often a victim state. Of course, not all kinds of judgement generate victimhood. I might judge this pumpkin to be better than that pumpkin for the purpose of decoration. Discernment is not a victim state, but judgement based on distorted views of reality is. This accounts for all attitudes, including those that appear to be victimising others, such as bullying. We still make others wrong and our actions, in this narrative, are their fault, as in ‘Look what you’ve made me do.’ The element of self-justification is always there; it makes us the star and victim of the drama. The opposite of the victim, the victimiser, might be easier to see in operation because it is often active and aggressive, but both are always there.

Until we fully see our agency in how we are in the world, we will be in a victim state to some extent. The victim state keeps us in illusion about others, and projects that illusion onto them. We are victimising others, which means not seeing them as they really are and not treating them well as a result. We do harm because we are not allowing others to be as they really are and treat them more or less as objects in our world. When we are caught up in the illusions of the mind, we are constantly resisting and trying to force others into the story we have made up about them and us. The story is a myth about what others are like and how they treat us. We find it hard to allow others to be truly who they are and free, because this would mean giving up the idea we



have created about them as being wrong. We think that, if we give this up, we will have lost them too.

For instance, if Malcolm withdraws from people in response to a particular set of circumstances, the withdrawal is actually a communication. But it is distorted. Malcolm probably thinks his message is loud and clear. Let us say the withdrawing actually translates into the message ‘Don’t leave me!’ In his subconscious mind he thinks the withdrawing is getting the message across, but that the person he is communicating with just does not get it, perversely. So the other person is in the wrong in Malcolm’s narrative, and that becomes the point of the attitude. The distorted message is not just an isolated fact, it has a purpose. It is designed to keep the situation going. It is a communication but it got stuck in a loop and, as long as the attitude is running, it is never being delivered or received. So it just keeps on going.

The attitude and associated behaviour sets out to recreate the situation that perpetuates it not being communicated satisfactorily, over and over. It is like saying, ‘Well, I’m communicating like mad here, but you don’t get me, so you are in the wrong, I am right, it’s all your fault so I’m going to withdraw my love.’

However, if Malcolm, for example, realises what he is doing and gets better at direct communication instead of withdrawing, he would have to give up the narrative in which he is right and others are wrong. The communication is the key to change, but deep change is not about improving communication in general; it is about finding and making the original communication that set off the attitude in the first place. This is why empathic conversations do not usually result in deep change. They are not specific enough. If he were then to see what he was doing in its entirety, including the message, then he would have no need for his dysfunctional habits of behaviour. He would communicate and others would get it, or not, and he would not have any need for withdrawal. The only reason to keep the behaviour going is if he did not get it across completely, or had some other investment in maintaining that state or he is still invested in a person getting the communication yet that person is refusing it.

Key points

◉ The mind can be mapped.

◉ The first, outer layer is made up of casual connected experiences.

◉ The second, more fixed and deeper layer is made up of emotional trauma experiences.

◉ The third layer is made up of physical trauma experiences.

◉ The fourth layer is made up of implants.

◉ The fifth layer is made up of basic states of being.

◉ The core of the mind is made up of the dualism of existence and un-existence.

◉ The mind has four functions:

· memory

· analysis

· decision-making

· personality.

◉ The individual has the property of consciousness; the mind does not have its own consciousness.

◉ The contents of the mind can be conscious or subconscious.

◉ We can still think when we have no mind.

◉ The mind is a victim state.