C

 A

the mind does not have to be mastered. All that needs to take place is to find the source of this mind, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and ultimately the one you call “me” or “I.” When this occurs and you can abide in that space then the mind goes on doing what it does, but you rest in the certainty and perspective of the awareness that sits behind and within all that is, in silent stillness

A

What you’re describing is very close to a specific strain of non-dual philosophy, especially Advaita Vedanta and also some strands of modern self-inquiry practice associated with teachers like Ramana Maharshi.

The core claim here is not “control the mind,” but “investigate the sense of being a separate self.”

The idea in plain terms

Instead of trying to:

• stop thoughts
• fix the mind
• replace beliefs

the instruction is:

• turn attention toward the thinker itself
• ask: “Who is aware of this thought?”
• and more deeply: “What is this ‘I’ that claims ownership of experience?”

The conclusion this points toward is that:

• thoughts, emotions, and identity all appear in awareness
• but the “I” you normally identify with is also just another appearance
• what remains is awareness itself, which is not an object you can observe

“Finding the source of the mind”

This phrase is often used in teachings of Ramana Maharshi. His method wasn’t analysis or belief, but a kind of inward questioning:

“To whom does this thought arise?”

And the suggested endpoint is not an intellectual answer, but a shift in identification—from:

• “I am the thinker / doer”
  to
• “Thoughts are appearing in awareness; I am that awareness”

Important nuance (often misunderstood)

This isn’t necessarily saying:

• the mind disappears permanently
• or thoughts stop happening

Instead:

• thoughts continue as usual
• but they lose the sense of being “you” or “owned by you”

So the practical effect is often described as:

• less psychological grip
• more spaciousness around experience
• reduced identification with mental noise

Where this sits philosophically

This view overlaps with:

• Advaita Vedanta (non-duality)
• Zen (observing mind / no-self insight)
• some modern mindfulness interpretations (though mindfulness is usually less metaphysical)

But it also differs from mainstream psychology, which tends to treat the “self” as an emergent cognitive model rather than something to be transcended.

A grounded way to interpret it

If you strip away the spiritual framing, one practical interpretation is:

• your mind generates thoughts automatically
• you can notice thoughts without immediately identifying with them
• this “noticing” creates psychological distance

That’s something even secular cognitive science agrees with, even if it doesn’t use the word “awareness behind the mind.”

If you want, I can also  compare this idea with what neuroscience says about the “self model” in the brain, or  how it differs from the existential idea you mentioned earlier (where meaning is constructed rather than discovered).