Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Yes, N1N2, I completely take your point and understand where you're coming from....I feel a small nuance of pride, if and when asked whether I'm a Buddhist, when I say yes.
(dead give-away at work....small picture of Tara near my desk....2" high metal figurine... White Tara screen saver....keeps me Mindful)
But....How can I describe it? It's a warm pride of Buddhism itself....I know that sounds odd, but maybe some can see what I mean.... It's a joy that I personally have, for the Refuge it brings me. The delight and happiness I have come to know by being connected with the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.
Does that make sense....?
sure it makes sense.
I would say, though, not to confuse a feeling of genuine appreciation & good fortune for having encountered the dharma with egotism. And certainly, if having Tara on your desktop & your desktop help you to stay mindful, that is not a form of egotism at all. There may be egotism there, but having the images on display is not the source of it.
Now, there is a tendency, when one devolops faith in any path, to consider themselves as superior/holy/better-than by identifying themselves with the path. I know I do it & I imagine the majority of buddhists have had moments of this. And I would guess that a good deal of Christians, Muslims, Jains, Wiccans, OTO members, Freemasons, Satanists, Jews, Athiests & Agnostics have done this as well. Heck, I imagine those that shun applying such categories to themselves can do so with pride as well. It is a natural product of ignorance/misapprehension of reality. It is only at the stage of Sotapanna that false notions of self (and doubts for that matter) drop away, thought there are still lingering defilements as ignorance has not yet been completely uprooted.
its like all the stories of asking monks and the llama what religion they belong to..
they know all too well that religion is a name used to stereotype and judge ppl..
You might be able to personally judge someones appearance but telling whats in their minds, and grouping their mind as part of a social group makes no sense.
Mind is more complicated than something as trivial as our image. If i was a christian or buddhist and i group myself as that.. well i would not be me, i'm pretending and being something false. This is exactly why ppl defend their beliefs so much, ego and false belief..
its terribly annoying to think there are so many ppl who are already dead both in mind and body. Walking corpses.. u can spot them
Anyway :::Question:::
surely the mind is part of the body, though seperate when we have experenced trauma, it shows, scans indicate parts of the brain have been damaged.. and blah blah blah.
When we become senile, again this is due to the deteriotaion of the mind and body mainly due to age, ppl who are mad, or mentally challenged.. again how on earth is it possibile for someone to actually be (in mind) a seperate entity from their body...
in both christian soul sense, and buddhist sense of non-self.. i have no clue.. except to come to the conclusion that the mind is indeed part of the body.. anyone answer my question? or come up with something that makes sense?
It all depends on what mind you're talking about. If you're talking about ordinary, discursive mind, then that is a product of the brain and subject to birth, old age, sickness and death. If, however, you're talking about Mind, i.e., primordial wisdom mind, that is deathless, unaffected by the condition of the body, and unfathomable.
As for taking pride in being Buddhist, again you have to distinguish between ordinary pride, the kind that makes ego-clinging stronger because it only strengthens one's ego, just another thing to show that you are you, or what we call vajra pride, which is not based on ego but rather reflects the confidence and fearlessness of one who has moved beyond ego.
You are confusing "brain" with "mind". Mind is not material it is immaterial. What you call a person is simply a combination of mind and body, mentality and materiality. Perhaps the only way for you to understand this is to observe the mind in deep states of meditation where all the senses cease except for the mind. Until then, this will simply remain an abstract concept that does not make sense because you have yet to experience the separation between the two.
I think that Celebrin, Palzang and Elohim's posts demonstrate exactly the problem for the rationalist.
"Mind," Jason says, "is immaterial", by which I take it that he does not mean that it is of no consequence. Rather, he is, I presume, suggesting that 'mind' exists is some way that is different from the electro-magnetic spectrum, including matter, and, possibly, different from the quantum mechanical level too. If this is so, then its very existence as separate from the physical organ of generation, which we assume to be the brain, we assume, becomes a matter of 'faith'.
Palzang, putting a capital letter to Mind, tells us that it is "primordial wisdom mind, that is deathless, unaffected by the condition of the body, and unfathomable." primordial wisdom mind, that is deathless, unaffected by the condition of the body, and unfathomable". Once again, it is an existence that does not appear to subject itself to scientific, laboratory analysis, nor is it apparent to all and sundry. It is another area where 'faith' in its existence is required. In terms of those who are at the point of studying the First and Second Turnings of the Wheel, it is also contradictory.
I have no particular objection to faith, as I have said. I have faith in many things, including friendship, love and the value of a healthy diet. What I have said, elsewhere, is that, as followers of the Buddha's way, we should be far more up-front about admitting that a pivotal part of our practice and belief system rests on this non-rational starting point.
Celebrin's questioning of mind as more than a dependent construct is crucial and can, I suggest, only be answered by urging him to 'practise'. This, however, has some problems too. We know that human beings are extremely good at convincing themselves that their presuppositions are 'true'. When start from 'faith' or from imitating 'faith', we may quickly find that we are believing more than can be proved. Just look at the 'Last Days' believers, from every age. Thus, personal conviction, even among the most worthy, is always suspect.
As for taking pride in being Buddhist, again you have to distinguish between ordinary pride, the kind that makes ego-clinging stronger because it only strengthens one's ego, just another thing to show that you are you, or what we call vajra pride, which is not based on ego but rather reflects the confidence and fearlessness of one who has moved beyond ego.
Palzang
Surely though being urself is not being a buddhist, Name and groups aren't where anyone belongs. Being urself is buddhism itself and being nonself implies u cannot be anything than that which you are.
no person can be anything, no man is a christian becauses its impossible for him to be in a sense a christian, hes generalised into a group where he believes in specific things. Following God though.. implies the person follows the teachings but is not nailed down.
in being a buddhist or christian or muslim... to me means that its personal, and not only that but extremist and fundamentalist. Someone who believes they belong in a specific group will defend that and form an attachment even though it is a false ego. There is no wisdom in being biased and therefore i conclude that anyone who views themselves outside of being simply who they are.. is infact very biased..
in believing in god .. that is personal.. its speculative and therefore i see it as neither true nor untrue, and therefore those who believe are biased, and not wise. I think its the same with social grouping, any person who says they are a muslim,jew, scot,christian,cat,bagel, buddhist are biased ppl.
i asked one guy who he was and he answered "a shy confused christian " that is not who he is, but who he believes he is and partly what he wants to be.
for me rebirth is speculative itself, and since i believe its personal i see it the same.. a theory thats neither right nor wrong...
Surely though being urself is not being a buddhist, Name and groups aren't where anyone belongs. Being urself is buddhism itself and being nonself implies u cannot be anything than that which you are.
no person can be anything, no man is a christian becauses its impossible for him to be in a sense a christian, hes generalised into a group where he believes in specific things. Following God though.. implies the person follows the teachings but is not nailed down.
in being a buddhist or christian or muslim... to me means that its personal, and not only that but extremist and fundamentalist. Someone who believes they belong in a specific group will defend that and form an attachment even though it is a false ego. There is no wisdom in being biased and therefore i conclude that anyone who views themselves outside of being simply who they are.. is infact very biased..
in believing in god .. that is personal.. its speculative and therefore i see it as neither true nor untrue, and therefore those who believe are biased, and not wise. I think its the same with social grouping, any person who says they are a muslim,jew, scot,christian,cat,bagel, buddhist are biased ppl.
i asked one guy who he was and he answered "a shy confused christian " that is not who he is, but who he believes he is and partly what he wants to be.
for me rebirth is speculative itself, and since i believe its personal i see it the same.. a theory thats neither right nor wrong...
I assume everyone to put right effort in understanding until I am showed otherwise. I do not think anyone in this thread lacks it. But the discussion reminds me of the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta. Although the questions layed out there are different, the message could be the same:
The eightfold path is offered to anonye to follow it. Although reincarnation is a central issue in Buddhas teachings, I think it is really more important to take the offer, walk the path for yourself and keep an open mind about things. Personally, I do not think "over individual" reincarnation (rebirth) should be skipped or considered to be obsolete. What I do think is that the Buddha taught in a time and a region where reincarnation was a religios doctrine, seen maybe even as self-evident truth that was not questioned by people like it is today, especially in the west. I think he would be patient
Again I am not encouraging anyone to skip the thought of reincarnation (most doubt the part where it goes over the individual existence I guess, therfore calling it rebirth) at all, I merely think one should be not too focused on questions that are difficult to be grasped, while at the same time, cannot be believed for some. At times where even the Dalai Lama warns people to better stay in their Religions, and uses comparisons of the buddha nature to the soul,(presumably to give people who are used to that notion the message that buddhism is not nihlism and as well to show the differences of the notions) i think it is safe to say that people risk to end up confused and unhappy, while trying to grasp total different notions of belief that developed over centuries within a life-time or even within a short span of a life-time.
I would encourage anyone not to get unhappy because of the doubts but rather study the dhamma with good will and right effort and to practice the insights gained. Of course the topic can be discussed but I rely rather on intuitive insight on that particular topic.
I think that Celebrin, Palzang and Elohim's posts demonstrate exactly the problem for the rationalist.
"Mind," Jason says, "is immaterial", by which I take it that he does not mean that it is of no consequence. Rather, he is, I presume, suggesting that 'mind' exists is some way that is different from the electro-magnetic spectrum, including matter, and, possibly, different from the quantum mechanical level too. If this is so, then its very existence as separate from the physical organ of generation, which we assume to be the brain, we assume, becomes a matter of 'faith'.
Palzang, putting a capital letter to Mind, tells us that it is "primordial wisdom mind, that is deathless, unaffected by the condition of the body, and unfathomable." primordial wisdom mind, that is deathless, unaffected by the condition of the body, and unfathomable". Once again, it is an existence that does not appear to subject itself to scientific, laboratory analysis, nor is it apparent to all and sundry. It is another area where 'faith' in its existence is required. In terms of those who are at the point of studying the First and Second Turnings of the Wheel, it is also contradictory.
I have no particular objection to faith, as I have said. I have faith in many things, including friendship, love and the value of a healthy diet. What I have said, elsewhere, is that, as followers of the Buddha's way, we should be far more up-front about admitting that a pivotal part of our practice and belief system rests on this non-rational starting point.
Celebrin's questioning of mind as more than a dependent construct is crucial and can, I suggest, only be answered by urging him to 'practise'. This, however, has some problems too. We know that human beings are extremely good at convincing themselves that their presuppositions are 'true'. When start from 'faith' or from imitating 'faith', we may quickly find that we are believing more than can be proved. Just look at the 'Last Days' believers, from every age. Thus, personal conviction, even among the most worthy, is always suspect.
Well, yes, Simon, it definitely is a problem for the rationalist. I would suggest, however, that it is also not a matter of faith. It is, rather, a matter of experience. When you experience the truth of rebirth, for example, or Primordial Wisdom Mind [but then I repeat myself] through your practice, then it is something that is beyond rational thought, that is beyond faith, that indeed is beyond ordinary mind. That's why I refer to it as Mind because Mind is not limited by my limited being, it is not even something that is "mine" per se, but it is limitless, undefinable and all-pervasive, and it's what informs us all, each and every one, from the lowliest microorganism to the greatest thinker. It's what the Taoists call "Tao". If you ascribe any quality to it, you've missed it because you can't limit it with qualities and definitions. That's why it doesn't bother me that it can't be "proven" in the traditional, ordinary sense with EEG machines or MRIs or whatever. If it was just a matter of faith, I wouldn't be here either. I'd be off on a beach somewhere enjoying the last few lingering days of life... I don't place much faith in faith actually.
Remember, Buddhism is essentially a Mystery School, as you might put it. It provides a means that allows us to connect with mysteries in a way that has been largely lost in most modern religions. It is one of the very few remaining links to man's past when he had a true connection to the mysteries of life rather than the pale imitation we see now in so-called modern religions. So it doesn't really matter which path you choose as long as it can take you to the same place, the Cloud of Unknowing, as the Christian mystics referred to it (great name for it, imho), a place that is beyond anything we are familiar with or used to doing in our ordinary life.
Of course, we in the West are brought up to believe that we can figure out anything. When we encounter something that we can't, we automatically dismiss it as superstition or "religious belief" that can't be verified without ever considering that maybe there's something really there. So that's why I continue to harp on about rebirth and such, even though I'm sure most people are tired of hearing it. It's because there is something there worth examing, though the catch is you'll have to give up some cherished beliefs and ego-clinging to get it. :hair:
Palzang
Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality. The four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements — these are called materiality. So this mentality and this materiality are what is called mentality-materiality. (MN 9)
Also, mind is dependent upon consciousness:
With the arising of consciousness there is the arising of mentality-materiality. With the cessation of consciousness there is the cessation of mentality-materiality. The way leading to the cessation of mentality-materiality is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration. (MN 9)
mmmm i would consider the mind to be a product of the brain, and the brain a product of the body, which is a product of reproduction.. i don't see how previous lives come into the equation, that just bojangles me..
As for faith, i believe that is truelly wrong, letting what you want to believe in lead you is wrong. This will only make you biased and grow an ego, accepting what has no questions left is enlightenment surely.. but i'll never never have no questions left on re-incarnation or rebirth.. so i can't ever accept it
thanks for the links Elohim, especially the first i found interesting but still hard to believe (talking now about my immediate instincts as "educated" westerner )
I think to postulate the mind to be the product of the brain or the body is a materialistic view, which leaves out that there is an exchange between body and mind. While it is fairly certain, that the mind is linked to the body, or in other words, needs a material basis, to claim the mind being a product of the body is misleading imo, since it would let it look like that the body constitues everything about the mind, while we all know, that the mind can affect everything from eating behaviour to what when and how we move our body
Since i think one should not in Buddhism ponder about the first cause that creates everything,meaning not saying in the beginning there was mind that made matter or in the beginning was matter that evolved to minds, but rather to observerve the arising of interdependend phenomena, their´causes and effects, i hold the view that stating the mind is the result of the body is an overstatement, even if it maybe the most scientific aproach.
yes ppl are brainwashed by their eduacation but theres no real proof for anything... especially rebirth or heaven or hell..
if u say there is rebirth, it contradicts the ppl who claim to have seen heaven or hell...
Blargh its the same as gods.. some ppl claim to get magic messages floated down from heaven..
none of it is proove of anything but biased and most likely deranged minds.
the majority of ppl who claim such beardy events are usually con-artists or cooks, and theres usually a lorra ppl with charges and grudges against them.. i seriously don't trust the American quacks who claim jesus cured their bald kid with leukemia.. i mean .. ouch
I think especially the people who make hard ultimate claims, regardless wether pro or con, should consider the concepts of vohāra-sacca (conventional truth) and Paramattha-sacca (highest philosohical truth). Everyone who wants to either rule out or affirm rebirth philosophically has to get into the philosophical terms of the pali discourses, I think. He possibly could discover there what his rational mind is looking for to an extend that satisfies him.
The corner stones of the debate about rebirth in buddhism I see in paticcasamuppāda (dependend arising), anatta (not-self), and kamma. Those concepts should be examinend closer when a discussion about rebirth in buddhism is done, some presumably will realize that their arguments against rebirth are based on a heresy of personality. Difficult issue and I don`t know how to put it better, all I currently can say is that I would recommend everyone to look after 3 terms above.
yes ppl are brainwashed by their eduacation but theres no real proof for anything... especially rebirth or heaven or hell..
if u say there is rebirth, it contradicts the ppl who claim to have seen heaven or hell...
Blargh its the same as gods.. some ppl claim to get magic messages floated down from heaven..
none of it is proove of anything but biased and most likely deranged minds.
the majority of ppl who claim such beardy events are usually con-artists or cooks, and theres usually a lorra ppl with charges and grudges against them.. i seriously don't trust the American quacks who claim jesus cured their bald kid with leukemia.. i mean .. ouch
The hard materialist paradigm generally dictates that any experience which does not fall within the rationally acceptable parameters of the hard materialist paradigm, is categorized as delusion or hallucination (a bit circular, don't you think?). In other words, you're nuts if you have experiences which call this finality of this view into question! Basically, they are assuming their view to be axiomatic & I think this worldview does not hold up well enough to empirical scrutiny to be considered such.
Mainly, they (hard materialists) tend to view mind/consciousness as caused by bodily functions/brain activity. While correlations between brain & consciousness are undeniable (imo), one cannot logically prove that one causes the other. This is simply not empirically demonstrable. Really, this is speaking beyond their own acceptable means of proof.
Also, they tend to disregard the fact that ALL our experience is subjective. They posit their view of objective reality based on shared or similar subjective experiences, based on physically recognizable empirical tests. Unless a phenomena can be observed/measured in terms of the 5 sense media, then it is a delusion/false. However, once means is developed to observe/measure a previously unverifiable experience, that experience is then regarded as caused by the observable/measurable aspect of the phenomena (rather than simply noting a correlation, be it direct or indirect). Once again, the causal aspect of the phenomena cannot be empirically established by materialistic standards, imo.
Basically, it seems they try to fit every subjective experience into their materiality view & once they can find some workable correlation, then that is the absolute cause/truth. The thing is, any mental model or worldview we cook up (even if it is reliable) is simply a worldview we cooked up. It should be regarded as the secondary result of experience, rather than the primary experience. Logic itself is limited by the intelligence & experience that it is based off of. We must understand these limitations if we truly want to come to a final answer. And then, it must be realized that any logical statement can be refuted in some way. Theists try to but God in a box. Materialists want to put existence in a box. Sure, they come up with a lot of helpful/useful stuff. But I don't think we can consider any final conclusion to be 100% reliable, unless it recognizes the unreliable nature of final conclusions.
Now, I do think there are a lot of quacks & crooks out there, but this is a red herring to the rebirth debate. The existence of these individuals do nothing to support or discredit the Buddhist view. And it is important to realize that the Buddhist view cannot honestly be verified/refuted outside of the practices prescribed by the Buddha. This view has reportedly been empiracally verified by many a practitioner over the past 2500 years. Now, that does not mean you can't explain such experiences from a materialistic perspective. It just means that you can't authoritively dismiss a worldview as delusional, as the worldview has been empirically & repeatedly demonstrated by those who have observed reality using the methods prescribed by the Buddha.
Very well put, not1not2. Unfortunately, it probably went right over the heads of the hard materialists!
When I was young I felt strongly that the only way to understand reality was with logic and reason. I felt anything else was superstition and/or delusion. It was only when I began to experience things that couldn't be logically or rationally explained that my paradigm shifted, and the way that happened was through Buddhist practice.
For example, when I first came to our temple in Maryland back in '92-'93 one of my first jobs was to take care of the large long-life stupa situated near the temple. I'd clear offerings off that had been there a while, wash the stupa with a power washer once a month or so, and generally keep it looking nice. One nice winter day in December of 1993, a Sunday, I stopped by the stupa before heading home to see if anything needed my attention. It was a beautiful, cloudless (that's important) day just before sunset. No one was around, everyone had pretty much gone home, and I was by myself. As I approached the stupa, something in the sky caught my eye, and I looked up and almost fell over. There in the sky was a cloud shaped exactly like the stupa. Not only was the stupa shape there, but the steps on the base were there, the spire was there, even a bump where the statue on the front of the stupa sits. It didn't just look like a stupa, it was a cloud stupa. After standing there in awe for several minutes, I finally snapped myself out of it and went about my business. After I was finished, I looked up again and tried to find the stupa cloud. It had completely and utterly vanished. Like I said, there were no other clouds in the sky. Now, how would you explain that logically and rationally? There was no way to confirm it "objectively", no basis to believe that it could even happen, but there it was. I saw it clearly.
I'm not telling you all this to impress you with my spiritual prowess (that'd be a lie!), but to make my point that not everything is accessible to logic and rational thinking (well, it is, but on a different level than most of us operate). That was an important teaching to me because it helped me break through my habitual tendency of not trusting anything beyond my five senses. It also gave me a graphic lesson on the incredible potency and power of stupas.
So before you dismiss anything out of hand, try out the practices first, attain enlightenment, then come back and tell me I'll full of crap. Thanks!
Oh, I could easily shoot that one down as a simple hallucination based on the misfiring of neurological signals, which gave the impression that the cloud was, in fact, there in the same sense that the stupa was there. Now, as a materialist I would emphasize that this experience is unreliable. As a buddhist, on the other hand, I would say that this indicates the unreliability of our conceptions about reality & the importance of keeping our mind open. I would also say it has some major implications as to the nature of reality itself and the primacy at which we place the mind.
Now, I do have another experience which would not be as easily dismissed, assuming I'm not lying. I will post it as soon as I can, but it will take me a bit to get it typed out.
Also, they tend to disregard the fact that ALL our experience is subjective. They posit their view of objective reality based on shared or similar subjective experiences, based on physically recognizable empirical tests. Unless a phenomena can be observed/measured in terms of the 5 sense media, then it is a delusion/false. However, once means is developed to observe/measure a previously unverifiable experience, that experience is then regarded as caused by the observable/measurable aspect of the phenomena (rather than simply noting a correlation, be it direct or indirect). Once again, the causal aspect of the phenomena cannot be empirically established by materialistic standards, imo.
_/\_
metta
I agree. What materialists forget is that all experience is subjective. This does not mean it is arbitrary, obviously, we can observe phenomena in time and space and understand them with causality. However, it still describes how objects appear to us observing subjects, not as their are without us observing them with our means. While this fact can obviously be ignored in many cases, it becomes interesting the moment one asks about the nature of reality or absolute truth. Hard materialists commit the fallacy imo that they assume the world as they perceive it as it also were without them. However, if one holds a pedantic look on the issue, they do not solve the problem of solipsitic epistemology (that does not neccessarily mean "hard" solipsism, meaning no science is possible, it merely means science "only" establishes knowledge of the world in relation to us subjects), they just ignore it.
A hard materialist would occur to me as someone who sees introspection as useless, and to make a joke, does not belief he wants a new car until he sees the evidence for it at his cardiogram
Well, I suppose it could have been due to the mushrooms I had for lunch...just kidding!
Palzang
Of course, the way in which psycho-active substances so profoundly affect perception is also noteworthy, imo. The fact that the presence of different molecules can change our whole mode of experience indicates that reality is less solid then many of us assume. Considering that everything we ingest has different molecular qualities indicates that our state of consciousness is more fabricated than we realize. Perhaps, our very own body is a psychoactive substance? Now, I'm not sure how far we can take these implications, but it does attest to the impermanent & empty nature of consciousness. It also demonstrates to some affect how dependent co-arising actually works. In other words, there is no substantial thing to hold onto. Our experience truly is entirely dependent on multiple factors which are constantly fluctuating, giving off different impressions on a moment to moment basis.
Ah, materialists, not meaning to change your stance... There are many things we cannot see, not because they are supposedly "invisible" or "magical".... Some are simply too small (quantum strings), some too unimportant to the human head (how many ants did you see while walking back home today?), some are only private (the thoughts of another) etc. etc.
I seem to remember this somewhere, I think it's... Controversially What the Bleep! the movie... But this quote is true to any physicist. "There is no reality in the absence of observation." :rockon:
I believe in rebirth because I have seen many great men productions of rebirths. If this may defy the Kalamas to you, I also happen to believe in rebirth for I believe in dependent co-origination and a variety of little-known scientific reports I do not yet still understand.
Perhaps rebirth may just be one of many thoughts banished by materialism. Uri Geller, do you consider him a fraud? Studied by many scientists, he still baffles with his control over radioactive decay rates, PK etc. etc. without any physical signs of manipulation.
As to that which is too small... Do you witness electron charge moving in a lightning storm literally? All you see is white light, which you may test to be proof of electron movement via a million methods. Sometimes some things require you to watch them as a high-order construct.
Maybe materialists would want proof in everything, not necessarily seeing is believing. Am I right?
The experience that you describe but cannot pin down, Palzang, beloved, is exactly what I mean when I speak of the Mystery.
Hmmm, a very mysterious comment, Simon!
I think it was in the book The Holographic Universe where the author talks about what is really going on when we sense things. Nothing at all like what we think is going on. The world doesn't really look like what our senses think it does. And we are only able to sense a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, don't forget. The senses come about as a direct outgrowth, if you will, of our deluded belief in self and other, so that is their basic premise. Everything they sense and how they sense them supports that basic delusion. By breaking through that wall, say, with a mystical/religious experience, we can catch a glimpse of the other side and realize that there's a lot more to "reality" than we can imagine.
I think it was in the book The Holographic Universe where the author talks about what is really going on when we sense things. Nothing at all like what we think is going on. The world doesn't really look like what our senses think it does. And we are only able to sense a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, don't forget. The senses come about as a direct outgrowth, if you will, of our deluded belief in self and other, so that is their basic premise. Everything they sense and how they sense them supports that basic delusion. By breaking through that wall, say, with a mystical/religious experience, we can catch a glimpse of the other side and realize that there's a lot more to "reality" than we can imagine.
Palzang
At school, we dissected a bull's eye (ocular organ rather than peppermint sweet). We took it apart. We examine each component. Eyes fascinated me because I am extremely short-sighted. This wasn't diagnosed until I was 7 and seeing 'clearly' is still a wonder to me. Just recently, however, as I begin to lose the sight in one eye, I have started to wonder whether 'clear' vision has been more of a curse than a blessing. When everything is blurry, with soft edges, indistinct, without my glasses, I have to work at the process of interpretation of what I am seeing. I have to open or screw up my eyes deliberately rather than simply letting them get on with the job.
When everything seems clear, I accept without question that what I see is what is (now that's a great sentence!).
Our eyes can only cope with a finite number of stimuli, with the rods and cones of the retina firing and resting. A major proportion of the available stimuli are either ignored or else fall outside detection range. And then the accumulated stimuli, transformed into neural impulses, have to travel along the optic nerve to the visual cortex. After all that, vision occurs, with its strange added spin that it is experienced at the back of the skull but we imagine that we see it "out there".
The idea that this can actually portray reality is pretty funny.
Comments
sure it makes sense.
I would say, though, not to confuse a feeling of genuine appreciation & good fortune for having encountered the dharma with egotism. And certainly, if having Tara on your desktop & your desktop
Now, there is a tendency, when one devolops faith in any path, to consider themselves as superior/holy/better-than by identifying themselves with the path. I know I do it & I imagine the majority of buddhists have had moments of this. And I would guess that a good deal of Christians, Muslims, Jains, Wiccans, OTO members, Freemasons, Satanists, Jews, Athiests & Agnostics have done this as well. Heck, I imagine those that shun applying such categories to themselves can do so with pride as well. It is a natural product of ignorance/misapprehension of reality. It is only at the stage of Sotapanna that false notions of self (and doubts for that matter) drop away, thought there are still lingering defilements as ignorance has not yet been completely uprooted.
_/\_
metta
they know all too well that religion is a name used to stereotype and judge ppl..
You might be able to personally judge someones appearance but telling whats in their minds, and grouping their mind as part of a social group makes no sense.
Mind is more complicated than something as trivial as our image. If i was a christian or buddhist and i group myself as that.. well i would not be me, i'm pretending and being something false. This is exactly why ppl defend their beliefs so much, ego and false belief..
its terribly annoying to think there are so many ppl who are already dead both in mind and body. Walking corpses.. u can spot them
Anyway :::Question:::
surely the mind is part of the body, though seperate when we have experenced trauma, it shows, scans indicate parts of the brain have been damaged.. and blah blah blah.
When we become senile, again this is due to the deteriotaion of the mind and body mainly due to age, ppl who are mad, or mentally challenged.. again how on earth is it possibile for someone to actually be (in mind) a seperate entity from their body...
in both christian soul sense, and buddhist sense of non-self.. i have no clue.. except to come to the conclusion that the mind is indeed part of the body.. anyone answer my question? or come up with something that makes sense?
As for taking pride in being Buddhist, again you have to distinguish between ordinary pride, the kind that makes ego-clinging stronger because it only strengthens one's ego, just another thing to show that you are you, or what we call vajra pride, which is not based on ego but rather reflects the confidence and fearlessness of one who has moved beyond ego.
Palzang
You are confusing "brain" with "mind". Mind is not material it is immaterial. What you call a person is simply a combination of mind and body, mentality and materiality. Perhaps the only way for you to understand this is to observe the mind in deep states of meditation where all the senses cease except for the mind. Until then, this will simply remain an abstract concept that does not make sense because you have yet to experience the separation between the two.
Jason
"Mind," Jason says, "is immaterial", by which I take it that he does not mean that it is of no consequence. Rather, he is, I presume, suggesting that 'mind' exists is some way that is different from the electro-magnetic spectrum, including matter, and, possibly, different from the quantum mechanical level too. If this is so, then its very existence as separate from the physical organ of generation, which we assume to be the brain, we assume, becomes a matter of 'faith'.
Palzang, putting a capital letter to Mind, tells us that it is "primordial wisdom mind, that is deathless, unaffected by the condition of the body, and unfathomable." primordial wisdom mind, that is deathless, unaffected by the condition of the body, and unfathomable". Once again, it is an existence that does not appear to subject itself to scientific, laboratory analysis, nor is it apparent to all and sundry. It is another area where 'faith' in its existence is required. In terms of those who are at the point of studying the First and Second Turnings of the Wheel, it is also contradictory.
I have no particular objection to faith, as I have said. I have faith in many things, including friendship, love and the value of a healthy diet. What I have said, elsewhere, is that, as followers of the Buddha's way, we should be far more up-front about admitting that a pivotal part of our practice and belief system rests on this non-rational starting point.
Celebrin's questioning of mind as more than a dependent construct is crucial and can, I suggest, only be answered by urging him to 'practise'. This, however, has some problems too. We know that human beings are extremely good at convincing themselves that their presuppositions are 'true'. When start from 'faith' or from imitating 'faith', we may quickly find that we are believing more than can be proved. Just look at the 'Last Days' believers, from every age. Thus, personal conviction, even among the most worthy, is always suspect.
Surely though being urself is not being a buddhist, Name and groups aren't where anyone belongs. Being urself is buddhism itself and being nonself implies u cannot be anything than that which you are.
no person can be anything, no man is a christian becauses its impossible for him to be in a sense a christian, hes generalised into a group where he believes in specific things. Following God though.. implies the person follows the teachings but is not nailed down.
in being a buddhist or christian or muslim... to me means that its personal, and not only that but extremist and fundamentalist. Someone who believes they belong in a specific group will defend that and form an attachment even though it is a false ego. There is no wisdom in being biased and therefore i conclude that anyone who views themselves outside of being simply who they are.. is infact very biased..
in believing in god .. that is personal.. its speculative and therefore i see it as neither true nor untrue, and therefore those who believe are biased, and not wise. I think its the same with social grouping, any person who says they are a muslim,jew, scot,christian,cat,bagel, buddhist are biased ppl.
i asked one guy who he was and he answered "a shy confused christian " that is not who he is, but who he believes he is and partly what he wants to be.
for me rebirth is speculative itself, and since i believe its personal i see it the same.. a theory thats neither right nor wrong...
course that could change.. but i am me
So, Celebrin, who are you?
The eightfold path is offered to anonye to follow it. Although reincarnation is a central issue in Buddhas teachings, I think it is really more important to take the offer, walk the path for yourself and keep an open mind about things. Personally, I do not think "over individual" reincarnation (rebirth) should be skipped or considered to be obsolete. What I do think is that the Buddha taught in a time and a region where reincarnation was a religios doctrine, seen maybe even as self-evident truth that was not questioned by people like it is today, especially in the west. I think he would be patient
Again I am not encouraging anyone to skip the thought of reincarnation (most doubt the part where it goes over the individual existence I guess, therfore calling it rebirth) at all, I merely think one should be not too focused on questions that are difficult to be grasped, while at the same time, cannot be believed for some. At times where even the Dalai Lama warns people to better stay in their Religions, and uses comparisons of the buddha nature to the soul,(presumably to give people who are used to that notion the message that buddhism is not nihlism and as well to show the differences of the notions) i think it is safe to say that people risk to end up confused and unhappy, while trying to grasp total different notions of belief that developed over centuries within a life-time or even within a short span of a life-time.
I would encourage anyone not to get unhappy because of the doubts but rather study the dhamma with good will and right effort and to practice the insights gained. Of course the topic can be discussed but I rely rather on intuitive insight on that particular topic.
Regards
Well, yes, Simon, it definitely is a problem for the rationalist. I would suggest, however, that it is also not a matter of faith. It is, rather, a matter of experience. When you experience the truth of rebirth, for example, or Primordial Wisdom Mind [but then I repeat myself] through your practice, then it is something that is beyond rational thought, that is beyond faith, that indeed is beyond ordinary mind. That's why I refer to it as Mind because Mind is not limited by my limited being, it is not even something that is "mine" per se, but it is limitless, undefinable and all-pervasive, and it's what informs us all, each and every one, from the lowliest microorganism to the greatest thinker. It's what the Taoists call "Tao". If you ascribe any quality to it, you've missed it because you can't limit it with qualities and definitions. That's why it doesn't bother me that it can't be "proven" in the traditional, ordinary sense with EEG machines or MRIs or whatever. If it was just a matter of faith, I wouldn't be here either. I'd be off on a beach somewhere enjoying the last few lingering days of life... I don't place much faith in faith actually.
Remember, Buddhism is essentially a Mystery School, as you might put it. It provides a means that allows us to connect with mysteries in a way that has been largely lost in most modern religions. It is one of the very few remaining links to man's past when he had a true connection to the mysteries of life rather than the pale imitation we see now in so-called modern religions. So it doesn't really matter which path you choose as long as it can take you to the same place, the Cloud of Unknowing, as the Christian mystics referred to it (great name for it, imho), a place that is beyond anything we are familiar with or used to doing in our ordinary life.
Of course, we in the West are brought up to believe that we can figure out anything. When we encounter something that we can't, we automatically dismiss it as superstition or "religious belief" that can't be verified without ever considering that maybe there's something really there. So that's why I continue to harp on about rebirth and such, even though I'm sure most people are tired of hearing it. It's because there is something there worth examing, though the catch is you'll have to give up some cherished beliefs and ego-clinging to get it. :hair:
Palzang
To clarify what I meant by mind and matter:
Also, mind is dependent upon consciousness:
However, "brain" is not the same as "mind".
Regards,
Jason
As for faith, i believe that is truelly wrong, letting what you want to believe in lead you is wrong. This will only make you biased and grow an ego, accepting what has no questions left is enlightenment surely.. but i'll never never have no questions left on re-incarnation or rebirth.. so i can't ever accept it
Palzang
Palzang
Please read these two articles:
Is your brain really necessary?
Buddhism, the only real science
Perhaps you'll find them useful.
Sincerely,
Jason
I think to postulate the mind to be the product of the brain or the body is a materialistic view, which leaves out that there is an exchange between body and mind. While it is fairly certain, that the mind is linked to the body, or in other words, needs a material basis, to claim the mind being a product of the body is misleading imo, since it would let it look like that the body constitues everything about the mind, while we all know, that the mind can affect everything from eating behaviour to what when and how we move our body
Since i think one should not in Buddhism ponder about the first cause that creates everything,meaning not saying in the beginning there was mind that made matter or in the beginning was matter that evolved to minds, but rather to observerve the arising of interdependend phenomena, their´causes and effects, i hold the view that stating the mind is the result of the body is an overstatement, even if it maybe the most scientific aproach.
Regards
if u say there is rebirth, it contradicts the ppl who claim to have seen heaven or hell...
Blargh its the same as gods.. some ppl claim to get magic messages floated down from heaven..
none of it is proove of anything but biased and most likely deranged minds.
the majority of ppl who claim such beardy events are usually con-artists or cooks, and theres usually a lorra ppl with charges and grudges against them.. i seriously don't trust the American quacks who claim jesus cured their bald kid with leukemia.. i mean .. ouch
The corner stones of the debate about rebirth in buddhism I see in paticcasamuppāda (dependend arising), anatta (not-self), and kamma. Those concepts should be examinend closer when a discussion about rebirth in buddhism is done, some presumably will realize that their arguments against rebirth are based on a heresy of personality. Difficult issue and I don`t know how to put it better, all I currently can say is that I would recommend everyone to look after 3 terms above.
Regards
The hard materialist paradigm generally dictates that any experience which does not fall within the rationally acceptable parameters of the hard materialist paradigm, is categorized as delusion or hallucination (a bit circular, don't you think?). In other words, you're nuts if you have experiences which call this finality of this view into question! Basically, they are assuming their view to be axiomatic & I think this worldview does not hold up well enough to empirical scrutiny to be considered such.
Mainly, they (hard materialists) tend to view mind/consciousness as caused by bodily functions/brain activity. While correlations between brain & consciousness are undeniable (imo), one cannot logically prove that one causes the other. This is simply not empirically demonstrable. Really, this is speaking beyond their own acceptable means of proof.
Also, they tend to disregard the fact that ALL our experience is subjective. They posit their view of objective reality based on shared or similar subjective experiences, based on physically recognizable empirical tests. Unless a phenomena can be observed/measured in terms of the 5 sense media, then it is a delusion/false. However, once means is developed to observe/measure a previously unverifiable experience, that experience is then regarded as caused by the observable/measurable aspect of the phenomena (rather than simply noting a correlation, be it direct or indirect). Once again, the causal aspect of the phenomena cannot be empirically established by materialistic standards, imo.
Basically, it seems they try to fit every subjective experience into their materiality view & once they can find some workable correlation, then that is the absolute cause/truth. The thing is, any mental model or worldview we cook up (even if it is reliable) is simply a worldview we cooked up. It should be regarded as the secondary result of experience, rather than the primary experience. Logic itself is limited by the intelligence & experience that it is based off of. We must understand these limitations if we truly want to come to a final answer. And then, it must be realized that any logical statement can be refuted in some way. Theists try to but God in a box. Materialists want to put existence in a box. Sure, they come up with a lot of helpful/useful stuff. But I don't think we can consider any final conclusion to be 100% reliable, unless it recognizes the unreliable nature of final conclusions.
Now, I do think there are a lot of quacks & crooks out there, but this is a red herring to the rebirth debate. The existence of these individuals do nothing to support or discredit the Buddhist view. And it is important to realize that the Buddhist view cannot honestly be verified/refuted outside of the practices prescribed by the Buddha. This view has reportedly been empiracally verified by many a practitioner over the past 2500 years. Now, that does not mean you can't explain such experiences from a materialistic perspective. It just means that you can't authoritively dismiss a worldview as delusional, as the worldview has been empirically & repeatedly demonstrated by those who have observed reality using the methods prescribed by the Buddha.
_/\_
metta
When I was young I felt strongly that the only way to understand reality was with logic and reason. I felt anything else was superstition and/or delusion. It was only when I began to experience things that couldn't be logically or rationally explained that my paradigm shifted, and the way that happened was through Buddhist practice.
For example, when I first came to our temple in Maryland back in '92-'93 one of my first jobs was to take care of the large long-life stupa situated near the temple. I'd clear offerings off that had been there a while, wash the stupa with a power washer once a month or so, and generally keep it looking nice. One nice winter day in December of 1993, a Sunday, I stopped by the stupa before heading home to see if anything needed my attention. It was a beautiful, cloudless (that's important) day just before sunset. No one was around, everyone had pretty much gone home, and I was by myself. As I approached the stupa, something in the sky caught my eye, and I looked up and almost fell over. There in the sky was a cloud shaped exactly like the stupa. Not only was the stupa shape there, but the steps on the base were there, the spire was there, even a bump where the statue on the front of the stupa sits. It didn't just look like a stupa, it was a cloud stupa. After standing there in awe for several minutes, I finally snapped myself out of it and went about my business. After I was finished, I looked up again and tried to find the stupa cloud. It had completely and utterly vanished. Like I said, there were no other clouds in the sky. Now, how would you explain that logically and rationally? There was no way to confirm it "objectively", no basis to believe that it could even happen, but there it was. I saw it clearly.
I'm not telling you all this to impress you with my spiritual prowess (that'd be a lie!), but to make my point that not everything is accessible to logic and rational thinking (well, it is, but on a different level than most of us operate). That was an important teaching to me because it helped me break through my habitual tendency of not trusting anything beyond my five senses. It also gave me a graphic lesson on the incredible potency and power of stupas.
So before you dismiss anything out of hand, try out the practices first, attain enlightenment, then come back and tell me I'll full of crap. Thanks!
Palzang
Now, I do have another experience which would not be as easily dismissed, assuming I'm not lying. I will post it as soon as I can, but it will take me a bit to get it typed out.
_/\_
metta
Palzang
I agree. What materialists forget is that all experience is subjective. This does not mean it is arbitrary, obviously, we can observe phenomena in time and space and understand them with causality. However, it still describes how objects appear to us observing subjects, not as their are without us observing them with our means. While this fact can obviously be ignored in many cases, it becomes interesting the moment one asks about the nature of reality or absolute truth. Hard materialists commit the fallacy imo that they assume the world as they perceive it as it also were without them. However, if one holds a pedantic look on the issue, they do not solve the problem of solipsitic epistemology (that does not neccessarily mean "hard" solipsism, meaning no science is possible, it merely means science "only" establishes knowledge of the world in relation to us subjects), they just ignore it.
A hard materialist would occur to me as someone who sees introspection as useless, and to make a joke, does not belief he wants a new car until he sees the evidence for it at his cardiogram
regards
Of course, the way in which psycho-active substances so profoundly affect perception is also noteworthy, imo. The fact that the presence of different molecules can change our whole mode of experience indicates that reality is less solid then many of us assume. Considering that everything we ingest has different molecular qualities indicates that our state of consciousness is more fabricated than we realize. Perhaps, our very own body is a psychoactive substance? Now, I'm not sure how far we can take these implications, but it does attest to the impermanent & empty nature of consciousness. It also demonstrates to some affect how dependent co-arising actually works. In other words, there is no substantial thing to hold onto. Our experience truly is entirely dependent on multiple factors which are constantly fluctuating, giving off different impressions on a moment to moment basis.
Just some thoughts.
_/\_
metta
I seem to remember this somewhere, I think it's... Controversially What the Bleep! the movie... But this quote is true to any physicist. "There is no reality in the absence of observation." :rockon:
I believe in rebirth because I have seen many great men productions of rebirths. If this may defy the Kalamas to you, I also happen to believe in rebirth for I believe in dependent co-origination and a variety of little-known scientific reports I do not yet still understand.
Perhaps rebirth may just be one of many thoughts banished by materialism. Uri Geller, do you consider him a fraud? Studied by many scientists, he still baffles with his control over radioactive decay rates, PK etc. etc. without any physical signs of manipulation.
As to that which is too small... Do you witness electron charge moving in a lightning storm literally? All you see is white light, which you may test to be proof of electron movement via a million methods. Sometimes some things require you to watch them as a high-order construct.
Maybe materialists would want proof in everything, not necessarily seeing is believing. Am I right?
Hmmm, a very mysterious comment, Simon!
I think it was in the book The Holographic Universe where the author talks about what is really going on when we sense things. Nothing at all like what we think is going on. The world doesn't really look like what our senses think it does. And we are only able to sense a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, don't forget. The senses come about as a direct outgrowth, if you will, of our deluded belief in self and other, so that is their basic premise. Everything they sense and how they sense them supports that basic delusion. By breaking through that wall, say, with a mystical/religious experience, we can catch a glimpse of the other side and realize that there's a lot more to "reality" than we can imagine.
Palzang
At school, we dissected a bull's eye (ocular organ rather than peppermint sweet). We took it apart. We examine each component. Eyes fascinated me because I am extremely short-sighted. This wasn't diagnosed until I was 7 and seeing 'clearly' is still a wonder to me. Just recently, however, as I begin to lose the sight in one eye, I have started to wonder whether 'clear' vision has been more of a curse than a blessing. When everything is blurry, with soft edges, indistinct, without my glasses, I have to work at the process of interpretation of what I am seeing. I have to open or screw up my eyes deliberately rather than simply letting them get on with the job.
When everything seems clear, I accept without question that what I see is what is (now that's a great sentence!).
Our eyes can only cope with a finite number of stimuli, with the rods and cones of the retina firing and resting. A major proportion of the available stimuli are either ignored or else fall outside detection range. And then the accumulated stimuli, transformed into neural impulses, have to travel along the optic nerve to the visual cortex. After all that, vision occurs, with its strange added spin that it is experienced at the back of the skull but we imagine that we see it "out there".
The idea that this can actually portray reality is pretty funny.
"Things are not as they seem, nor are they otherwise."
_/\_
metta