Just found proof! Look at the beautiful parallel, in Vipassana according to MCTB2 (or audio) by Daniel Ingram:
[..] dangerous term “mind”, [..] it cannot be located. I’m certainly not talking about the brain, which we have never experienced, since the standard for insight practices is what we can directly experience. As an old Zen monk once said to a group of us in his extremely thick Japanese accent, “Some people say there is mind. I say there is no mind, but never mind! Heh, heh, heh!” However, I will use this dangerous term “mind” often, or even worse “our mind”, but just remember when you read it that I have no choice but to use conventional language, and that in fact there are only utterly transient mental sensations. Truly, there is no stable, unitary, discrete entity called “mind” that can be located! By doing insight practices, we can fully understand and appreciate this. If you can do this, we’ll get along just fine. Each one of these sensations [..] arises and vanishes completely before another begins [..]. This means that the instant you have experienced something, you can know that it isn’t there anymore, and whatever is there is a new sensation that will be gone in an instant.
Ok, this may prove nothing at all, and I haven’t even (yet) personally started trying to mentally observe what’s told in that quote, but I must say, on a purely intellectual level, this makes absolutely perfect sense to me exactly from the thoughts I hoped to convey in the post.
(not the first time I have the impression there are some particular elements of deep observations meditators, e.g. Sam Harris, explain, can actually be intellectually—but maybe only intellectually, maybe exactly not intuitively—grasped by rather pure reasoning about the brain and some of its workings/with some thought experiments or so. But in the above, I find the fit now particularly well between my ‘theoretical’ post and the seeming practice insights)
Just found proof! Look at the beautiful parallel, in Vipassana according to MCTB2 (or audio) by Daniel Ingram:
Ok, this may prove nothing at all, and I haven’t even (yet) personally started trying to mentally observe what’s told in that quote, but I must say, on a purely intellectual level, this makes absolutely perfect sense to me exactly from the thoughts I hoped to convey in the post.
(not the first time I have the impression there are some particular elements of deep observations meditators, e.g. Sam Harris, explain, can actually be intellectually—but maybe only intellectually, maybe exactly not intuitively—grasped by rather pure reasoning about the brain and some of its workings/with some thought experiments or so. But in the above, I find the fit now particularly well between my ‘theoretical’ post and the seeming practice insights)