A small portion of my philosophy.
Humanb
Explorer
I have always thought that if this place is real then why do I have to posess a brain to tell me what I am experiencing? Why do I have nerve endings that communicate to the brain in order to tell me what I am feeling?
If this place existed then wouldn't I feel and sense the world without the need to process it?
It seems to me that the brain is a creation of consciousness, along with all other phenomenon to make experiencing itself possible. Thus it seems that the brain has been created.
In fact, it appears that the whole universe exists as it does to be experienced and we by experiencing it bring it into existence. Like a hand in hand process between the one being that is both creator and experiencer.
I have come up with a quote that highly supports Buddha's teachings on treating others more important than the self. " Everything exists for the benefit of anything but itself."
Naturally our egos destroy this universal rule because it makes us act as the most important thing in our experience, but really we are here for everything else.
A tree doesn't exist for its own benefit because it physically can't benefit it's own existence, it can only be a tree. A tree benefits all life because it gives out oxygen in replacement of carbon dioxide, which magically just so happens to be the by product of inhaled oxygen.
I think there are countless examples of this selfless existence. Which points to emptiness and the lack of self. If nature is acting in such a way, then why are we doing the opposite?
Much love,
Humanb
Comments
Great post @humanb ! I like your view.
Yes our experience of the "real world" is subjected to this organism but this organism is also part of that will.
it is what it does and does what it is.
That which shines the stars is that which beats our hearts.
If a dog wags it a tail, it's not going it because it knows it should
Humans do the same as the dog, yet we have constant mental wobbles. Should I do this? What if this happens to me?
Constant anxiety trying to survive like our existence is a chore. A total fluke of nature, and we are the only true intelligence. We need to bulldoze the earth into our submission in order for us to continue to survive. . .
Yet where did we come from? What is it that looks out of my eyes? What is it that beats my heart?
Surely myself and the grass are one in the same?
But why don't we feel this connection?
Because although our thought process has allowed us to create this incredible technology, it's also trapped us in this mirage of self interest and concepts.
Sheesh @Earthninja - I thought the only things that came out of WA were miners and drug addled footballers!
You've opened my eyes......
I definitely agree with you there
Do you mean you could come to this conclusion without a brain?
The evidence is that the brain creates conciousness not the other way around. What am I not understanding?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratītyasamutpāda
^^^ Dependent origination suggests to me that the brain causes consciousness, not the other way around ... I still don't understand how mind/consciousness produces brain? There is as a starting point no brain just independent consciousness? Ay carumba!
It's an interesting idea to play with. You could say that life is an emergent property of the universe, and that consciousness is an emergent property of life. And there is the observer effect in quantum mechanics. But it also appears that life and consciousness took a considerable time to develop, and have appeared relatively late in the "evolution" of the universe.
In dependent origination name-and-form arise in dependence on consciousness, not the other way round. Unfortunately nobody can agree what this actually means.
Elsewhere a mutual dependence between form and consciousness is described.....
The brain doesn't create consciousness, this seems to be the reason people believe in just one life.. the brain is the computer and consciousness is the electricity that runs it.
The electricity isn't created by the brain but utilised by it. The electricity therefore is the source of the computers ability to be a computer, without electricity it It is simply nothing.
Consciousness, being the source of all phenomena Is the underlying cause of the existence of all things.
The brain seems to be a tool created to encompass consciousness within Consciousness, it's the icing on the cake..
This neatly lines up with the teachings of emptiness.. If we didn't have consciousness running our brains we wouldn't appear to exist because all that exists is a mere creation of mind.
I think it is, biologically speaking. Electro-chemical stuff. I'm not saying that consciousness is the same as the electro-chemical activity in the brain, but it does seem to be dependent on it, at least in the sense that consciousness ceases when brain activity ceases.
But again these are interesting ideas to play with. Maybe there is a lot of consciousness "floating around" out there in the formless realms looking for a sentient being to "inhabit"? Or maybe individual beings are all expressions of consciousness in some sense - "outlets" for consciousness? Is consciousness a purely individual phenomenon, or is it in any sense universal?
( answers on a postcard to SpinyQuiz #16, PO Box 38, Underneath The Arches, London E4 )
The universe is a bubble. And the bubble is composed of a membrane that is composed of one-dimensional strings. The membrane acts like a computer creating infinite number of realities that are not real. We are living in a holographic 3D simulation of life. Philip K. Dick noted already in the 70's that there are bugs in the programming of the simulation.
http://fusion.net/story/127646/dont-freak-out-but-the-universe-may-be-a-hologram/
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/august-2013/holographic-universe-experiment-begins
Hello. What a weird thing, I was just about to post a thread about this here as my welcome post. I have spent a great many years pondering non self and while I think I have made some progress in understanding this, there are still some unanswered questions, which I fail to understand the answer to.
I understand why the body is not self. I cannot will my body to be a certain way etc. In some regards, I think being born with a disability helped me realise this view from an early age in this life.
I understand why thoughts are non self, I cannot will my thoughts to be different, they arise and cease regardless.
I understand why consciousness is non self, since I cannot change it, it does not belong to me, whatever me is.
And so on and so forth.
However, I fail to understand how intentions are non self. If I have understood Kamma correctly (which I may not have), the intentions are karmicly potent, not the actions. e.g. stepping on an ant is only bad if you intended to cause harm.
But if this is true, and what is good karmic intentions and what is bad karmic intentions are universal (if I have read my suttas correctly), to whom or what does these intentions belong? And if I understand correctly, actions are results of the intentions, and we are responsible for our actions (thus we must be responsible for our intentions (implying that we can somehow will them to be different).
Am I totally off base here? Can someone help shed some light?
With metta,
Alex
Edit: And sorry if this is seen as a hijack, I did not intend for it to be, it seemed relevant to the discussion going on, so I thought I would save opening a new thread altogether.
The "you" of tomorrow will not be same as the "you" of today, but the "you" of tomorrow will have to deal with the consequences of actions done by the "you" of today ( and all the previous "yous" ). Or as the suttas say, being are heirs to kamma.
I understand that (i think). And I understand that actions give rising to consequences. But how is the intention non self? If they are non self, how can we be held responsible for them? We are not held responsible to say our thoughts and the arising of certain thoughts. We can't will our thoughts to be different. If the intentions are self however, how then can we say "Let my intentions be thus"?
I guess my biggest problem here is trying to understand what intention really is.
@Spinynorman
Yes it does appear that way.
The brain may simply be a set of conditions which allows that which already naturally exists to manifest as consciousness.
For example:
Electricity manifests when the necessary set of conditions are present. Electricity is produced from electrons flowing between atoms. If electrons didn't already naturally exist, electricity could not manifest.
An electric generator cannot create electricity. It can utilize naturally existing particles (electrons) that manifest as electricity because the necessary set of conditions (coil of wire, permanent iron magnet and rotation) are present.
So how does this apply to consciousness?
I would suggest that the brain, like the generator, contains all the necessary components, which in turn produces the necessary set of conditions for consciousness to manifest.
So the brain doesn't create consciousness, it would seem. It can only utilize what already naturally exists.
In the same way that an electric generator can't create electricity. If electrons didn't exist, then a generator would be just a piece of junk. It wouldn't create anything.
Consciousness must already exist as some non manifested potential to know and the unique composition of the brain along with the set of conditions caused by that, allows naturally existing constituent(s) to become embodied.
Then the question becomes, what naturally existing components come together to form consciousness?
Or is consciousness elementary? Meaning it cannot be broken down into smaller parts. And this brain enables it to become manifest.
I feel the most important aspect of this, as it applies to the meditative path, is just to realize that we are this consciousness embodied.
And that consciousness is inherently free of desire, craving, greed, anger, hatred, judgment, belief, likes and aversions.
Consciousness is only aware of minds conditioned activity (thoughts, desire, craving, greed, anger, hatred, judgment, belief, likes and aversions). But is never at any time defiled by that activity.
Meditative practice could be said to be a process of disentanglement between consciousness and the activity of mind.
Although in actuality, that entanglement is only perceived. Meditative techniques enable us to alter the activity of mind so that our natural presence (consciousness) becomes dominate and obvious. It is always dominate. Because no thing can be known without it. So its always right there with every object. But because of its subtlety and simplicity, we don't realize that we are it.
Instead we believe that we are the more gross and not so subtle aspects of life that appear to consciousness.
Consciousness is knowing. Therefore this means you are knowing. Which is to say, you are consciousness which is aware of objects.
The unique composition of the brain produces conditions which enables you to manifest. You are this manifestation.
Not the body, which supports it (consciousness) by consuming food and water.
Not the brain, which produce the necessary conditions for manifestation.
You are that manifestation. You aren't the container and all of its processes. You are knowing itself.
How can we be anything other than this knowing?
@Tony_A_Simien
Brilliantly explained
Still trying to understand.
Consciousness exists when there is nothing there to manifest it? So a pear exists in some empty way but only in the space it eventually manifests in.
Or consciousness software exists in some non existent magic electric cloud state without a server computer.
It seems you are starting from an assumption of god, consciousness, incarnating soul etc. That is fair enough. Fantastical assumptions are part of some dharma, delusions and many people like that sort of thing ...
... and now back to the unconscious 'mind' ... I wonder what it thinks about? Probably Nothing.
I do believe in the flying speghetti monster. I do. I do. I do.
" Everything exists for the benefit of anything but itself."
wonder if I can get a tattoo or an engraving done on the back of my heart like this...
When reality is reduced to words and thoughts they become fantasy. There is no question about that. Even when they point to what is.
There is no other way to communicate the possiblities without those words and thoughts.
If I don't understand. Does that mean that whatever has been said by another is untrue?
What is...is. Whatever I say, think or do will not alter the nature of existence outside of this limited form. It is...what it is. Whether I understand or not.
I base my suppositions on my life as a practitioner. As we all do. Whatever we say, we say from our knowledge and life experiences. Don't we?
My knowledge and experience is unique to me therefore my expression will be unique and possibly highly questionable to others.
As is all of our expressions. All completely unique. But I wouldn't call any of them any less valid than my own. They are completely valid based on that person's degree of disentanglement, knowledge and experience.
And who the hell am I to think that I know better than anyone else. Because I don't. Nor do I claim that I do. I know what's good for me. And you know what's best for you. But occasionally I will share some of my fantastic notions with others. As we all do with each other.
So actually, every person's notions about reality could be considered fantastical because the true nature of the one who knows is inherently devoid of any view fantastic or otherwise and is without quality.
However, the only way you will know for certain is to explore that reality yourself.
Did you at least consider your screen name being fox or was it always lobster?
I actually came across some Mormons a while ago and they approached me in the street, I talked to them for a while and agreed to meet up with them again to hear what they had to say.
So, after speaking with them for a good length of time on a number of occasions I realized something.. They kept reffering to knowing the truth and I kept hearing them saying that their religion was the truth.
But, what I realized was.. "Truth is relative to the being perceiving it"
We evoke meaning out of a meaningless experience, we are the ones that create our own purpose and experience of our entire existence here in this infinite universe.
The possibilities are just literally endless.
Is there an underlying truth of the universe?
Well, that's for you to decide.. Because to me, the understanding I have come to points to the fact that there is no underlying truth but that of emptiness. All other truths are self fabricated, which in the dharma Buddha refers to as conventional truths. Emptiness is referred to as ultimate truth.
So in a sense, Buddha is referring to the truth of all things but emptiness as meaningless because all phenomena is just a product of emptiness.
I think as an example its like trying to figure out why that car wouldn't start in your dream last night, what is the truth behind the cars broken state?... What does it matter?? The ultimate truth is, the dream was created by you. It was an hallucination. You wouldn't question something you knew didn't really exist.
Subatomic particles are waves of probabilities until they are measured (then you get only one value). After all, matter is just an illusion based on mathematics. We are as real as characters in cinemas or computer games. Stories within stories within stories. A cinema character would't feel anxious if someone could tell her/him: "Take it easy, this is just a film!"
Maybe, but if you drop a brick on your foot it still hurts. So it feels real.
I don't think there is any way to know for sure. There are a couple of suttas which describe consciousness as an element, but generally the emphasis is on consciousness being impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self, like the other aggregates.
Reifying consciousness might be an appealing idea, but I think it's one that should be approached with caution. Is there support in Buddhism for this approach? It probably depends on the tradition actually.
@dhammaseeker
I've been thinking about the same thing for a while now. I only got some simple ideas about intention and will so far.
For one, there seems to be an inherent paradox. To make a choice you need to be simultaneously fully free and fully committed. If you are free to do anything, why choose anything particular over another? If you are fully committed to one thing, aren't you losing track of your options?
Also, think of this: if your actions are a result of your previous experience, then you're always innocent. But at the same time, it is important to take responsibility.
The will (or fate itself) seems to be equally empowering as it is humbling.
Look at your own experience. We often choose what appears to be the more attractive option. Our choices are often limited by circumstance, and by our attitudes and habits.
But that's exactly what it does, since electricity is a flow of electrons. The brain does something similar but it's electro-chemical rather than electro-magnetic, not dissimilar to a battery.
A better analogy for consciousness might be the image on a computer screen, which relies on electricity but is not the same as electricity. A laptop running on battery isn't a million miles away from the way a human brain functions - power supply, hardware and software.
Consciousness = mind
I just prefer to use the word consciousness because its not confusing. Especially considering people confuse the word mind for brain.
Exactly... We are our experiences!!
If you were born into my body, lived my life exactly, right up until this point. You would be writing this sentence right now because you would be me.
And if who you are is dictated by what you have experienced then there is no good or evil person. All there is, is a person whom through their unique experience has developed a certain self image to which reacts to situations according to what they have already experienced.
So, if all we are is what we have experienced.
Then there is no self, because the self would just be a collection of experiences that can't be identified as the self. Just like the body is a collection of parts that can't be identified as the self.
I have had a dream, at least once, in which I felt physical pain, but those pains quit when I woke up.
I have chronic pains in my left knee, but they are normally numbed (English?) if I don't pay an attention. Pain is a subjective sensory perception like all the other observations.
So, there's no point in these stories we are living within if we don't react to the brick. Not even in Looney Tunes!
Sure, but most people don't deliberately drop bricks on their foot.
Mind usually has a broader meaning in Buddhism, it includes consciousness, perceptions, feelings, formations, all mental activity. Consciousness is traditionally 6-fold in Buddhism, one for each of the sense-bases and then mind-consciousness. In simple terms mind-consciousness is the awareness of thoughts, feelings, mind-states and so on.
Maybe they do in another version of reality. Everything that is possible will happen.
(Pssst SpinyNorman: Youtube -> Circus Mundus Absurdus Promo 2006. And have phantom pains something to do with this theme of relative reality?)
There will be at least one universe where I don't like ice-cream, strange as that may seem.
Not strange ar all! That happened in that one where you got stang by a wasp just after when you got your first ice-cream.
Well, the reason the car won't start would likely have more to do with the moral of the story rather than the mechanics of the car.
I think emptiness really describes potential rather than a lack of anything besides permanence.
I think every thing and/or process is information being shared and the result of information being shared. This could be some kind of rudimentary intelligence at work but does consciousness signify intent?
What is that "you" that changes?
It could be anything, but probably not a close affinity with ice-cream.
Why do you keep asking questions, do you think you're teaching us or something?
If it can be anything, what is it now?
Reminds me of the saying "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?".
And indeed, if there is no one to experience the tree does the tree fall at all, and does it even exist?
The OP also reminds me of quantum physics and the scientific proof that particles only take on a fixed state once they have been observed. And so it is with the universe, by experiencing it we bring it in to existence.
And so with our thoughts, they only exist if we allow them to entertain us.
Trying to shake a migraine.
You have entertaining thoughts?! Sheer luxury!
Yes, we even say I am trying to shake a migraine, or I am walking. If we look at it through circumstances, it is never the same I. But does it exist outside of circumstances, and if it does, what is it?
It's a temporal but convenient means of expressing a point of reference.
It's also more of a verb than a noun and so questions that make it seem like a noun are not really sensible to those that see it all as action.
Asking "what is it" is not as logical as asking "what is it doing".
Although lately I have been trying to shake off many migraines, I won't always be and that isn't all I do.
I am not a migraine shaker.
I am not a human but I am being human at the moment.
Who/what is being a human at the moment?
("What is it doing" is not interesting at this moment.)
Some say that "Oi dunno" is the best answer.
I say that there is no distinction between being and doing. This way, looking for the answer is futile from the start, as there cannot be one in non-duality. All boils down to presence.
You are asking me to label something that has always been in a state of change. There is no original cause as there is no original face.
You basically just said the same thing I did but you are still asking the question even after I've said it is a nonsensical one.
I say it all boils down to potential, you say it all boils down to presence.
Neither are complete.
There is one difference. From your previous posts, we can conclude that there is something behind the scene (potential). That's why I was asking about it.
I'm not even sure what you mean by "behind the scene".
Are you trying to point to subjective versus the absolute as if the absolute is somehow behind the scene of subjectivity?
I am just asking, if this is what you mean.
No, what I mean is there is no apt label as far as I know that captures that which we would definitively define.
I assume that presence is such a thing. It is both subjective and absolute. It can be deified (Hinduism), or emptied (Buddhism). Although, it appears that there is something behind, which observes it, it's just a dualistic illusion. Wherever we look we only find presence. This presence is characterized by three marks: impermanence, suffering and non-self.