問題是頭腦 Part D

 

問題是頭腦



那麼 心是什麼呢？ 要回答這個問題， 首先要說一些關於心不是什麼的東西是有意義的 。 頭腦不是 我們是誰。 思想和我們的真實身份是 根本不同類型的事物。 事實上， 談論 我們作為一個東西根本沒有多大意義 。 事情在 二元世界以及我們可以 談論 的內容以及 我們在哪裡賦予意義。 心就是這個境界。 我們的真實自我屬於 語言不 觸及的 維度; 它不是 關於思考和賦予意義。

所以這個模型把真正的 個人在科學的職權範圍和範圍之外， 只能與可以看到 和測量的東西一起正確工作 。心靈， 但是，確實在可測量的領域 內運作，因此我們可以 瞭解和談論 它。

本：我是 去上冥想課，因為我的女朋友和我的母親得到了 進去。他們繼續 向我提出加入他們 ，並說這將有助於 緩解我的壓力。我想我不會 如果我的女朋友不去 上課，繼續。 但它 總是一樣。 我會坐在那裡，試圖 專注於 我的呼吸， 但我 只是發現自己在想任何事情，除了我的呼吸。我的背會痛，鼻子會發癢。 這就像 酷刑。 我只是不能一次盯著 任何事情 超過幾秒鐘 。 感覺 我身上的一切都在抗議。

然後，有一次，它和往常一樣，然後是別的東西 發生。這有點難以解釋。它只發生了 一 兩秒鐘。 就像，突然， 我腦子裡有這麼想 ，眼底有點頭疼，那都是靜止的。 發生了，但我只是在觀察它。 不是 我，所有的事情 都在發生。 我 只是坐在那裡，我可以進入它 或不。這是一個巨大的解脫。 就在那 幾秒鐘 內，我可以選擇 是否



要聽 所有這些東西都在我腦海中，我只是選擇不這樣做。這不像 噪音停止了，但我不在裡面， 不是我。 我在一個 平靜的地方，我可以 清楚地看到，我真的覺得自己像“我”。美妙！好景不長 但這就是讓我堅持冥想的原因。那幾秒鐘改變了 事情。我知道我腦子裡的所有東西並不是那裡唯一的東西。




個人

在我們有一個之前，我們 是誰就在那裡 介意。我們可以稱這種前心理狀態為“我們”，即真實的或原始的自我。但這個詞在宗教中被大量使用。 和心理治療，在這裡可能不是 特別有用。帕坦伽利使用 purusa一詞， 通常被翻譯為“人”。1伯納更喜歡這個詞個人，因為它 強調真正的個體是獨特和不可分割的。 個人超越性別， 種族、性取向和所有其他 隨機品質。 伯納 說：

當我使用 「個人」一詞時，我並不是指身體，大腦，一個 思想或個性。我只是說某人。我不能說“靈魂”，因為 靈魂確實 是基本的人格。 我在這裡談論的是一個人， 不可 分割的[原文如此]， 不是身體 的，如果 涉及的話 有了思想 或身體，可以意識到 身體和 心靈。 2

只有個人才能處理 做 人的問題 ，因為只有個人才能處理。 可以成為一個有意識的演員。心靈沒有獨立的存在 分開 來自 個人。 頭腦是由個人創造的。 它就像一團霧，我們正在 透過它看。 因為那團霧，我們對 所看到的感到困惑 。 我們 與哪些體驗實際上是「我們」脫節，在心靈的想法 和我們是誰之間 混淆 真的是。3 我們也對我們在哪裡和為了什麼感到困惑 同樣的原因。事實上，頭腦只是阻止我們成為 真實自我的一部分，但如果我們想 進步， 它是我們 首先需要 處理 的部分。



個人有意識; 頭腦沒有。結果，當我們 假設我們是我們的思想，我們實際上正在步入 轉變 故事交織在一起的世界，其不穩定是我們痛苦的重要來源。 頭腦永遠無法 確定任何事情。所以認同 思想而不是 個人 對我們來說是一個真正的問題 ， 頭腦充滿了永恆變化的焦慮和不安全感。

當我們與他人互動時 人們假設他們是他們的思想，這主要是一種練習 勾結他們生活中多變的故事 。 人們知道這一點，即使只是以一種 模糊的方式。 另一方面 ，人們也隱含地知道他們什麼時候 正在直接解決。 他們覺得自己被認真對待; 聯繫人具有 不同的品質。 與個人交談 是適當的接觸， 這是我們特別想要的。

約翰：我 記得第一次見到羅伯特。這是幾年前的事了，我要去 在啟蒙強化課程4上，他正在 多塞特郡跑步。 我沒有 做強化課程，因為我覺得 對生活很糟糕，但實際上是因為我 對事情感覺 很好 ，想要更多。我當時 二十多歲，我 有點漂 移，但還不錯，並嘗試了不同的療法。 但遇見羅伯是我永遠不會忘記的事情。我一邊喝著茶，一邊想著自己在的時候陷入了什麼。 在我們開始之前，打電話到樓上與他見面聊天。他 採訪了所有人，所以沒什麼 大不了 的。 我走進房間，只有 這個普通的傢伙在那裡。 我記得他 穿著一件舊的阿蘭毛衣和一些非常可怕的拖鞋，盤腿坐在沙發上。我希望有人符合我的想法 大師多了一點，所以我有點失望。但是當他看著我時，它是 不同於被別人看。沒有什麼奇怪的 它，但我只是覺得 他在 看我。 我想 也許我感覺到了 在我生命中之前。我奶奶在我小時候給了我一點同樣的感覺 年輕。但這很有趣。我感覺有點“遇見”，就像我很久不記得 的感覺一樣。 關於這一點 啟蒙密集，每當我和他說話時，我只覺得 他 把我 說的每一句話都當真了。 他沒有忍受 任何狗屎。 我必須承認，



我大概 在當時並不是最容易對付的人。但他似乎只是看著 通過這一切，看到“我”，我不得不 回應。 一開始我 有點尷尬，開玩笑，但這 讓我長大 了， 更認真地對待自己。我真的很感激 為此給他。



帕坦伽利明確地將 他的整個哲學表達給個人，而不是 介意。像伯納一樣，這是因為個人是唯一能夠接收資訊並採取行動的人。 家裡 沒有人 關心心靈 ; 它就像一台大計算機，只有因為個人為它編寫軟體才能工作。或者也許最好 將其描述為 像 戲劇或戲劇; 它沒有 自己的生命 ， 它不能創造自己。 我們 感興趣的是 作者 。

作為人類，我們總是犯的一個大錯誤是讓思想 負責 個人。 這就像 讓一個孩子 負責 一個 成人;一路走錯路。帕坦伽利說：「人的不變性在於 成為 心靈特徵 的主人，它總是知道這一點。5 現實情況是， 負責的是個人 。 個人的核心 特徵是成為能夠擁有真正知識的人 。當 個人不負責，我們不長大，我們不拿 在生活中對自己負責，我們與自己脫 節。 我們沒有 真正的智慧，也沒有 部分的理解。 我們的 行動在某種程度上基於 故事

使世界變得 零碎。

伯納談了很多關於如何 聯繫和聯繫沒有意義的人 他們自己離開他們的思想。 這是 他工作的重要組成部分; 這就是為什麼 他設計了 啟蒙強化版。他把 與不同意識水準的人合作的各種技巧， 但他們都專注於接觸 真實的個人並增強它。 這是因為 他和帕坦伽利一樣，非常清楚，只有當個人被解決和援引時 ，才有可能取得真正的進展。 即使有人 對自己的真實身份感到困惑，被直接稱呼，來自 一個人對另一個人是強大的，最重要的是，積極促進 進步。

另一件事是 心靈與個體的區別在於，雖然心靈的結構 可以被 映射 和處理，但



個人不能; 它沒有 結構。 個人是無法描述的，也沒有任何 概念，如“意識”和“潛意識” ，可以用於 指代心靈。 6

個人也是 我們獨特的源泉。 心智本身 並不是獨一無二的，也不能 解釋為什麼我們都本質上是不同的。 它反映了個體，但它 是借來的個性。 正如帕坦伽利所說，“注意...是 自然界最稀缺的一面，7 並且品質最接近普魯薩-s[個人]自己'。8 但 每個人的思想仍然不是獨一無二的，因為， 雖然它最貼近地反映了個人，但它以 錯誤的結果我們 所有這些都使我們，即錯誤地將 我們的真實自我識別為 思想。 事實上，我們 所有人都以 相同的方式或多或 少地犯 了同樣的錯誤 同樣的結果意味著 任何特定的頭腦都 沒有什麼真正的不同。 它們 都是同一種 東西。

人與人之間的 真正差異歸結為 個體之間的差異。的重要性質 讓每個人都與眾不同的個體 是行動的意志和 能力。 這在猶太教-基督教傳統中也是如此，在那裡它 上帝創造具有自由意志和選擇的人 是至關重要的，否則他們就無法選擇 認識 神。9

如果我們像我們許多人 隱含地做的那樣， 假設個人和思想是 同樣的事情，那麼 心理説明的唯一有用的工作就是 讓 頭腦變得更好 和秩序，因為這就是 我們是什麼和我們是誰。這是一個合理的模型。 但伯納提供了另一種選擇。在他的 心理健康和説明模型中，由於個人被思想所 掩蓋， 唯一合乎邏輯的目標是 努力 消 解思想和加強 個人。如果我們相信心和個體是一致的，那麼這個目標 這不僅是不可取的， 而且 是不可能 實現的。 它們是一樣的 想法是為什麼東方的 無心觀念看起來如此從主流現代觀點來看，具有挑戰性和荒謬性。

跟隨伯納，只要 我們允許心靈和個人可能是不同的和可分離的，一旦理解了心靈的結構 和目的，那麼它就非常 有意義。 淡化心智，轉而發現 個人。此外，很明顯，我們 不必 為了


處於更好的狀態。 真正的個人從另一個平臺操作，甚至沒有 涉及思想。然後的工作是確定和加強 個人。當我們這樣做時， 頭腦就不再是 一個問題。

對於帕坦伽利和伯納， 個人也是 神聖的。 但這 不應該是 與上帝混淆。對於帕坦伽利來說，上帝等同於伊斯瓦拉，伊斯瓦拉是 完美的個體， 儘管不是猶太教-基督教中的造物主神。 模子。10 伊斯瓦拉是一個從未被記憶或過去困擾的人 行動。11 所以 雖然不是上帝，但個人都是獨一無二的，就像伊斯瓦拉/上帝一樣。12 這 獨特性是我們的神性;一個人確實如此 不必稱它為上帝。

我們有一些東西，我們的個性，它超越了 世俗的世界。它超越了語言和測量，只能通過詩歌和藝術來暗示，儘管我們所有人都會體驗到它，無論我們喜歡怎麼稱呼它，因為它是 我們的存在。談論神聖是沒有必要的 為了理解心靈， 雖然。 為了理解心靈，我們 只需要了解關係

THE PROBLEM THAT IS THE MIND 



So what is the mind? To answer that, it makes sense to first say something about what the mind is not. The mind is not who we are. The mind and our true identity are fundamentally different types of thing. In fact, it does not make much sense to talk in terms of who we are as a thing at all. Things are in the realm of the dualistic world and what we can talk about and where we assign meaning. The mind is this realm. Our real self belongs to a dimension that language does not touch; it is not about thinking and assigning meaning. 

So this model puts the real individual outside the remit and reach of science, which can only properly work with what can be seen and measured. The mind, however, does operate in the realm of the measurable, so we can know and speak about it. 

Ben: I was going to the meditation class because my girlfriend and then my mother had got into it. They kept going on at me to join them and said it would help with my stress. I don’t think I’d have continued had my girlfriend not been going to the class. But it was always the same. I’d sit there and try to focus on my breath, but I just found myself thinking about anything and everything except my breath. My back would ache and my nose would itch. It was like torture. I just couldn’t stay fixed on anything for more than a few seconds at a time. It felt like everything in me was protesting. 

Then, one time, it was the same as usual, and then something else happened. It’s a bit hard to explain. It only happened for a second or two. It was like, suddenly, there was all this thinking and a bit of a headache behind my eyes, and that was all still happening but I was just observing it. It wasn’t me, all that stuff going on. I was just sitting there and I could get into it or not. It was a huge relief. Just for those few seconds I could choose whether 



to listen to all that stuff in my head or not and I simply chose not to. It’s not like the noise stopped, but I wasn’t in it, it wasn’t me. I was in a calm place where I could see clearly and I really felt like ‘me’. Wonderful! It didn’t last long but that’s what’s kept me going with the meditation. That few seconds changed things. I know that all that stuff in my head isn’t the only thing there. 




The individual 

Who we are was there before we had a mind. We might call this pre- mind state ‘us’, that is, the real or original self. But that term has been much used in religions and psychotherapy and may not be especially helpful here. Patanjali used the term purusa, which is often translated as ‘person’.1 Berner preferred the word individual because it emphasises that the true individual is unique and indivisible. The individual transcends gender, ethnicity, sexuality and all other random qualities. Berner said: 

When I use the term ‘individual’, I do not mean body, a brain, a mind or a personality. I just mean someone. I can’t say ‘soul’ because the soul is really the basic personality. I am talking here about an individual, that which is individable [sic], that which is not a body and that which, if it is involved with a mind or body, can become conscious of the body and the mind.2 

Only the individual can deal with the problems of being a human being because only the individual can become a conscious actor. The mind does not have independent existence apart from the individual. The mind is created by the individual. It is something like a fog through which we are looking. Because of that fog, we are confused about what we see. We become out of touch with which experiences are actually ‘us’ and confused between the ideas of the mind and who we really are.3 We also get confused about where and what we are for the same reason. The mind is in fact just part of what keeps us from being our true selves but it is the part we need to deal with first if we want to progress. 



The individual has consciousness; the mind does not. As a result, when we act on the supposition that we are our minds, we are actually stepping into the shifting world of interwoven stories, the instability of which is a significant source of our suffering. The mind can never be sure of anything. So identifying with the mind and not the individual is a real problem for us, fraught as the mind is with the anxieties and insecurity of perpetual change. 

When we engage with other people with the assumption that they are their minds, it is mostly an exercise in colluding with the changeable story of their lives. People know this, if only in a vague way. On the other hand, people also know implicitly when they are being addressed directly. They feel they are being taken seriously; the contact has a different quality. Addressing the individual is proper contact, and that is what we particularly want. 

John: I remember meeting Robert for the first time. This was years ago and I was going on an Enlightenment Intensive4 he was running, down in Dorset. I wasn’t doing the Intensive because I felt terrible about life but actually because I felt pretty good about things and wanted more. I was in my twenties and I was drifting a bit but not badly, and experimenting with different therapies. But meeting Rob was something I’ll never forget. I was having a cup of tea and wondering what I’d got myself into when I was called upstairs to meet him for a chat before we began. He had an interview with everyone, so it was no big deal. I went into the room and there was just this ordinary bloke there. I remember he was wearing an old Aran jumper and some pretty dreadful slippers and sitting cross-legged on a sofa. I was hoping for someone who fitted my idea of a guru a bit more, so I was mildly disappointed. But when he looked at me it was different from being looked at by other people. There was nothing weird about it, but I just felt like he was seeing me. I guess maybe I’d felt that before in my life. My grandma gave me a bit of the same feeling when I was young. But this was interesting. I felt kind of ‘met’ like I didn’t remember feeling for a long time. And on that Enlightenment Intensive, whenever I spoke to him I just felt that he was taking everything I said really seriously. He wasn’t putting up with any shit. I must admit, 



I probably wasn’t the easiest person to deal with back then. But he just seemed to look through all that and see ‘me’ and I had to respond. I was a bit embarrassed at first and made jokes, but it made me grow up and take myself more seriously. I’m really grateful to him for that. 



Patanjali addresses his entire philosophy explicitly to the individual and not the mind. Like Berner, this is because individuals are the only ones able to receive the message and act on it. There is no one at home where the mind is concerned; it is like a big computer that only works because individuals write the software for it. Or maybe it is best described as being like a play or drama; it has no life of its own, it cannot create itself. It is the author in which we are interested. 

A big mistake we invariably make as human beings is putting the mind in charge of the individual. It is like leaving a child in charge of an adult; all the wrong way round. Patanjali says, ‘The immutability of the person consists in being the master of the character of the mind, which it always knows.’5 The reality is that it is the individual who is in charge. The core characteristic of the individual is being the one who can have real knowledge. When the individual is not put in charge, we do not grow up, we do not take responsibility for ourselves in life and we are out of touch with ourselves. We have no real wisdom or only partial understanding. We base our actions, to some extent or other, on stories 

that make piecemeal sense of the world. 

Berner talked a lot about how to reach out and contact people who had no sense of themselves apart from their minds. This was a significant part of his work; it is why he devised the Enlightenment Intensive. He put together various techniques for working with people at different levels of awareness, but all of them focused on contacting the real individual and enhancing it. This was because he, like Patanjali, was absolutely clear that it is only possible to make real progress when the individual is addressed and invoked. Even when someone is confused about who they really are, being addressed directly, from one individual to another, is powerful and, above all, actively helpful for progress. 

Another thing that differentiates mind from individual is that while the mind’s structure can be mapped out and dealt with, that of 



the individual cannot; it has no structure. The individual is beyond description or any notion such as ‘conscious’ and ‘subconscious’ that can be used with reference to the mind.6 

The individual is also the source of our uniqueness. The mind by itself is not unique and does not account for why we are all essentially different. It reflects the individual but it is borrowed individuality. As Patanjali says, ‘mind…is the most rarefied aspect of Nature,7 and the closest in quality to purusa-s [individuals] themselves’.8 But each mind is still not unique because, while it reflects the individual most closely, it comes into existence as the result of a mistake we all make, that is, misidentification of our true self as the mind. The fact that all of us make the same mistake in the same way and with more or less the same results means there is nothing really different about any particular mind. They are all the same sort of thing. 

The real difference between people comes down to differences between individuals. The important properties of the individual that makes each one different are the will and the ability to act. This is the same in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, where it was essential that God created people with free will and choice, for otherwise they could not choose to know the divine.9 

If we suppose, as many of us implicitly do, that the individual and the mind are the same thing, then the only useful job of psychological help is to get the mind into better shape and order, since that is what and who we are. This is a plausible model. But Berner offers an alternative. In his model of psychological health and help, since the individual is obscured by the mind, the only logical goal is to work towards dissolving the mind and strengthening the individual. If we believe the mind and individual are identical, then this goal would not only be undesirable, it would be impossible to achieve. The idea that they are the same is why the Eastern idea of no-mind can seem so challenging and absurd from the mainstream modern view. 

Following Berner, as soon as we allow that the mind and individual might be different and separable, and once the mind’s structure and purpose is understood, then it makes excellent sense to de-emphasise mind in favour of uncovering the individual. Moreover, it becomes apparent that we do not have to untangle the entire mind in order to 


be in a better condition. There is a different platform from which the true individual operates that does not even involve the mind. The work then is in identifying and strengthening the individual. When we do that, the mind simply ceases to be a problem. 

For Patanjali, and for Berner, the individual is also divine. But this should not be confused with God. God, for Patanjali, equates with Isvara, which is the perfect individual, though not a creator god in the Judaeo-Christian mould.10 Isvara is an individual that has never been troubled by memories or past action.11 So, while not God, individuals are all unique in the same way Isvara/God is.12 This uniqueness is our divinity; one does not have to call it God. 

There is something of us, our individuality, which transcends the mundane world. It is beyond language and measurement and can be alluded to only through poetry and art, though it is experienced by all of us whatever we prefer to call it, because it is at the very heart of our being. Talking about the divine is not necessary for understanding the mind, though. To understand the mind, we have only to understand relationship.13